Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97) - Israel (Ratification: 1953)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2009, Publication: 98th ILC session (2009)

A Government representative indicated that the Committee of Experts, in its observation, had initially requested the Government to reply to its comments in 2010. Nonetheless, his Government had been asked to prepare for a discussion before this year’s Conference Committee. Due to the wide range of issues raised and the short notice given to his Government, he wished to stress that the response below was incomplete, and that supplementary information would follow.

The Government representative provided updated statistical information on the number of migrant workers. Over 90,000 temporary foreign workers were legally employed in Israel in 2008–09, of which 50,000 in the care-giving sector, 28,000 in agriculture and 10,000 in the construction sector.

As to the equal treatment to be extended to migrant workers in law and practice, he stated that laws applying to Israeli workers equally applied to foreign workers, and that the Foreign Workers’ Act provided additional protection in terms of medical insurance, housing and written detailed contract. Employers were required to provide foreign workers with all labour rights accorded by law and to sign a commitment to pay them in accordance with national legislation. The speaker indicated that, in 2008–09, the newly formed Population, Immigration and Border Authority (PIBA) in the Ministry of Interior had become the competent authority for issues involving migrant workers; thus replacing the Foreign Workers’ Unit in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labour. According to the official statistics on enforcement of labour laws relating to the employment of foreign workers, the number of investigations opened against employers suspected of violations was 3,111 in 2007 and 2,685 in 2008, the number of criminal indictments against employers and employment companies was 693 in 2007 and 4,400 in 2008, and the number of judgements rendered was 48 in 2007 and 49 in 2008.

Furthermore, the Government representative stated that Israel was striving to reduce migrant workers’ dependency on employers. He indicated that the procedures limiting the freedom of migrant workers to change employers had been revoked. Migrant workers could presently look for alternative employment after registering this change of status with the Ministry of the Interior. Following the decision of the High Court of Justice that had declared the procedures binding foreign workers to an individual employer illegal, new systems had been adopted in Government Resolution 447–448. Those systems allowed for even greater facility to change the employer and were in the process of implementation. Workers deciding to leave their employer would no longer have to register with the Ministry of Interior but rather with an employment company (in the construction industry), or with recruitment agencies (in homecare and agriculture). In the construction industry, the system of registration by a limited number of closely supervised and licensed companies had successfully been in place since 2005. The new system of homecare workers registered by licensed recruitment agencies, which was gradually being implemented since September 2008, would improve visa portability of those workers and the supervision of employment. In agriculture, the system of registration of foreign workers by recruitment agencies had been delayed, inter alia, due to the transfer of the competent authority, and was expected to be put into place late 2009 or beginning 2010.

Lastly, with regard to health insurance and social security, mandatory insurance coverage for temporary workers included all services to which Israeli workers were entitled, except those irrelevant to temporary workers who arrived in Israel for short periods of time (such as psychiatric treatment, health issues which originated before arrival in Israel and fertility treatments). The health insurance had to be paid for by the employer who could deduct a limited percentage of the monthly premium from the worker’s salary. Foreign workers were entitled to all labour rights and privileges accorded by Israeli law, and, in addition, were fully insured in a variety of branches including maternity, employer bankruptcy and work accidents.

The Employer members recalled that Israel had ratified Convention No. 97 in 1953, and that the application of the Convention by Israel had been examined by the Committee of Experts for the first time. The observation of the Committee of Experts related to the principle of equal treatment enounced in Article 6 of the Convention, and the issues raised mainly concerned two points: the issue of the conditionality of residence permits upon work for a specific employer; and the issue of the application of the social security system to migrant workers.

They recalled that regarding the first point, the Committee of Experts had noted a 2006 decision of the High Court of Justice, which had held that the automatic loss of the residence permit in the event of job loss violated the dignity and liberty of migrant workers. The Committee of Experts had deduced that, in practice, migrant workers did not benefit from the protection provided by national legislation. The Employer members believed that this was a possible but not imperative conclusion, and that further practical information was required on the issue.

The Committee of Experts had further referred to Government Resolution 447–448 of 2006, which set out new modalities for employing migrant workers in the care-giving and agricultural sectors with a view to increasing the protection of migrant workers and to simplifying the process of changing employers. In this regard, the Employer members thanked the Government for the particulars supplied concerning the Resolution and its implementation.

The Committee of Experts had also noted the new legislation prohibiting private agencies from charging migrant workers abusive recruitment fees, the establishment of an Ombudsperson to deal with complaints, and the 2006 official statistics of 3,743 new cases opened and 5,861 cases with fines imposed against employers for offences related to migrant workers. The Committee of Experts had deduced that the figures demonstrated the attention paid by the authorities to law enforcement but also suggested a high-level of non-compliance with the law. The Employer members considered that the 2007 and 2008 statistics and the information given by the Government representative on the contracting of private law firms to deal with the cases, illustrated the Government’s will to improve enforcement.

Concerning the second issue, the Committee of Experts had referred to section 1D(a) of the Foreign Workers’ Act, which provided that employers had to arrange, at their own expense, medical insurance for foreign workers. Moreover, an additional regulation listed the services to be included in the insurance and provided for exceptions and limitations with regard to certain services, including entitlements related to medical conditions existing before the migrant worker took up work in Israel. The Committee of Experts had considered the above provisions as contrary to the Convention, without, however, mentioning that Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention allowed for possible exceptions from the principle of equal treatment, as far as social security was concerned, for instance in case of special arrangements in the national law of immigration countries concerning benefits payable wholly out of public funds. Albeit improbable, the Employer members believed that there was a need to examine whether the above exception was applicable in this case. In view of the Government representative’s comments, it even appeared doubtful whether there was any inequality of treatment whatsoever.

Therefore, the Employer members felt that additional information was needed concerning the national social security system in general and the health insurance system and its applicability to migrant workers in particular, as well as information as to whether the cited provisions were still in force. In any case, the Committee of Experts had asked the Government to communicate more detailed information in 2010. They considered that, given that the present case was being examined for the very first time, the Government should be given the opportunity to supplement the already supplied information in order to clarify the outstanding points.

The Worker members considered it opportune to be able to debate Convention No. 97 concerning migrant workers at the Conference Committee. Migration had surged throughout the world. The principal question raised by this case was the issue of treatment of migrant workers vis-à-vis national workers. Article 6 of Convention No. 97 was not ambiguous. It provided that a country should not, in law or in practice, provide to immigrants, who were lawfully within its territory, treatment less favourable than that which it applied to its own nationals. Yet, Israel’s legislation violated the principle of non-discrimination provided for in this Article on three matters: residence, employment and social protection.

With respect to residence, the Worker members stated that the national legislation established a link with the employment held by the migrant worker. It meant that if this worker lost or left his or her job, the worker would also lose his or her residence permit, thus becoming an illegal immigrant. In such a situation, the employer enjoyed excessive powers, and the employment relationship could be akin to forced labour. The High Court of Justice of Israel had ruled, in 2006, that linking residence permits and employment constituted a violation of the freedom of migrant workers contrary to the principle of equal treatment and, thus, to the provisions of Convention No. 97.

As regards employment of migrant workers, the Worker members indicated that despite the creation by the Government of a system which allowed registration with the Ministry of Labour for migrant workers in search of employment, and the establishment of an Ombudsperson for treatment of complaints filed by those workers concerning discrimination, the increasing number of complaints received appeared to indicate the extent of existing discrimination. They further highlighted that the new measures only applied to the health and the agricultural sectors.

Concerning health insurance, the Worker members recalled that in Israel, it was the employer who paid the health insurance for foreign workers whom he or she employed. There were further exceptions and limitations on services offered to foreign workers. The health system, therefore, was different from that for national workers.

To conclude, the Worker members highlighted that Convention No. 97 did not apply to irregular migrant workers or frontier workers, whose number, according to reliable estimates, was larger than that of regular migrants.

The Worker member of Indonesia highlighted the importance of discussing the plight faced by migrant workers due to sponsorship systems, short-term employment and residence permits. It was estimated that there had been about 189,000 migrant workers in Israel in 2006.

She recalled that, before 2005, migrant workers had been bound to their employer already before arrival, with the end of the employment agreement entailing the immediate revocation of the residence permit. In many instances, this dependency on the employer had exposed migrant workers to abuse, underpayment, delay in payments, lack of social protection, forced overtime and other exploitative conditions. Situations amounting to forced labour had also been reported. She attested to the difficulty of ending labour relationships, even though exploitative, owing to the importance of remittances for families in the countries of origin and the obligation to reimburse debts taken to pay employment agency fees.

Following the ground-breaking decision of the High Court of Justice in 2006, a new arrangement had been put in place, in which migrant workers were tied to an employment agency instead, but could easily change the employer. She reported that Kav Laoved and Workers’ Hotline, two Israeli organizations working to help migrant workers, had carried out research about the conditions of migrant workers in Israel before and after the introduction of the new system. They had found that most migrant workers did neither receive proper information about working conditions before leaving their country of origin nor a copy of the signed employment contract. Most of them were required to pay extremely high fees to brokers (US$700 to US$10,000), and those fees had risen by more than 66 per cent with the introduction of the new system of registration with employment agencies. In the construction sector, migrant workers on average only received 85 per cent of the minimum wage, and, in the homecare sector, they were also paid well below that amount. The most exploitative conditions were endured by migrant workers in agriculture, mostly originating from Thailand, of which 80 per cent complained about months of wage arrears. Another problem was the enforcement of migrant workers’ rights due to underfunding or inadequacy of existing complaint mechanisms.

The Worker member therefore urged the Government to repeal the sponsorship system and again review its legislation and practice to ensure full compliance with the decision of the High Court of Justice and the principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Convention.

The Worker member of Italy stated that migration of workers to richer countries was a growing phenomenon due to the increasing uncertain economic, social and environmental conditions in their home countries. Migrant workers who left their countries, including those workers who reached Israel and the Gulf countries, with the hope of fair contractual and living conditions were quite often trapped in exploiting situations in which fundamental human and workers’ rights were entirely denied, as highlighted earlier by the Worker member of Indonesia. Freedom of movement was limited, very little social protection was offered compared to Israeli workers, working hours were long and they faced the risk of becoming illegal due to the restrictive migration legislation. Thousands of migrants were undocumented workers without a contract with an employment agency nor a visa. They faced the same conditions in virtually all Middle Eastern countries because they were recruited overseas by local contractors who often did not grant them real rights.

She stated that in the 1990s, Israel had opened its borders to migrant workers from China, Romania, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Turkey in order to replace Palestinian workers. Thousands of foreign workers currently lived and worked in Israel. The report of the Committee of Experts highlighted only part of the problems they faced. In 2006, after the decision of the High Court of Justice, the Government had introduced new rules in order to address the issue of “binding agreement”, which directly linked the workers to the employer, exposing the workers to confiscation of their passports, non-payment of minimum wages, mistreatment and high threat of becoming illegal. In many cases, even today, migrant workers were obliged to work for the same employer, even if their working conditions were poor and salaries were low. They were practically bound to their job due to the complexity of the labour market, difficulties in finding a new job and the fact that migrant workers, if they became redundant, were not entitled to unemployment benefits, as opposed to Israeli workers. On top of this, after six months of unemployment, they lost their resident permit. As a result, many workers who had lawfully arrived in Israel had since then lost their legal status running the risk of being expelled from the country.

She added that migrant workers were very often confronted with the non-implementation of the protective legislation which had to apply to all workers, particularly with respect to salaries. If a great number of Israeli workers already earned less than the minimum wage, migrant workers, who were more vulnerable, were being paid 40 per cent less than that of Israeli workers doing similar jobs. This had been confirmed by a study in 2006 by the Research Department of the Bank of Israel, which affirmed that the cost of hiring migrant workers in agriculture was 40 per cent lower than that of Israeli workers. The Ministry of Finance had explained that the reason for this lower cost was that migrant workers agreed to work twice as long as Israeli workers.

The speaker indicated that many migrant workers did not have access to effective and comprehensive social protection measures. The package available to them did not include coverage for illnesses, unemployment or old age, it covered occupational accidents and maternity leave, but not care expenses. She noted that employers’ contributions to the national insurance scheme amounted to 2 per cent of the salary of migrant workers, while, in case of Israeli workers, they had to pay 7.6 per cent of their salaries. In 2003, the Economic Arrangements Law had amended the National Insurance Law providing that holders of a temporary residence visa would not be considered as “residents” eligible for social security or health-care benefits. Furthermore, it was virtually impossible to obtain Israeli citizenship; a similar point raised also in the case of Italy. The national legislation did not grant citizenship or residence to non-Jews, apart from specific exceptions such as a family relationship with an Israeli citizen. As a result, migrant workers living in Israel for years could not obtain the same civil rights as Israeli citizens.

She indicated that some of the most critical violations of fundamental rights provided for in the Convention had been rectified thanks to the efforts of Israeli trade unions and other NGOs, but there were still numerous cases of violations. Some of the legal provisions remained restrictive. Some employers and employment agencies exposed migrant workers to very hard working and living conditions. This was illustrated by the case of some Thai workers who had claimed that despite an army order not to work near the Lebanese border they had been forced to work there by their employer. Such behaviour was in violation of an agreement signed between the Government and the trade unions (the Histadrut), which required employers to pay the workers’ salaries if they could not report to work, due to army orders. She called on the Government to review the sponsorship system and its legislation in order to bring it into conformity with Convention No. 97.

The Worker member of France observed that generally, the situation of migrant workers deteriorated in the world and even more significantly in Europe. This case was particularly rich in examples illustrative of infringements of Convention No. 97. In this case, the Committee of Experts had recalled that the High Court of Justice had considered that in Israel the power of employers with respect to migrant workers was excessive and infringed the dignity and freedom of those workers. Moreover, the Minister of Interior had excessive power to determine conditions to grant a residence permit, which was nevertheless limited by the general principles of law, including the principle of non-discrimination between Israeli workers and foreign workers. Convention No. 97 enounced this principle under Article 6 and provided that equality had to exist not only in law but also in practice.

The speaker recalled that the Committee of Experts had recognized the Government’s recent measures for the protection of the rights of migrant workers, but had acknowledged that considering the number of complaints and fines, additional measures might need to be taken. In addition, the Committee of Experts had examined the legitimacy of a system of social protection specifically for migrant workers, which indicated the political will to treat migrant workers differently. In his view, the Government should not maintain such distinction which was unnecessary and potentially discriminatory. On the contrary, the Government needed to review national legislation in this regard.

Considering that the elements presented by the Government before this Committee were very succinct, he expressed the hope, that in its report to the Committee of Experts, which was due in 2010 the Government would communicate enough particulars, such as, for instance, on family allowances, maternity benefits and the provision of health-care, in order to allow a detailed assessment. He emphasized that the notion of decent work had to be materialized through equality of treatment between migrant and national workers.

The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Worker member of the Syrian Arab Republic wished to raise the question of the situation of the Palestinian workers in the occupied Arab territories.

The Employer members raised a point of order, considering that the issue raised by the previous speakers was outside the framework of the discussion.

The Chairperson asked the speakers to stick to the question of migrant workers in Israel in the context of the application of Convention No. 97.

The Government representative of Israel, having listened with interest to the observations made by the Employer members and by each and every Worker member, reminded the Committee that the elements of response presented by his Government were not complete, and that complementary information would be submitted after consultations with other relevant authorities. The speaker stressed that the rights of migrant workers constituted a high priority for Israel. He expressed his Government’s commitment to making all necessary efforts to ensure equal treatment of foreign workers and the effective enforcement of their rights.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the information provided to the Conference Committee, in spite of the fact that initially a reply had only been requested for 2010. They expressed the hope that the Government would submit full and detailed information on the issues raised in the observation, so that the Committee of Experts could carry out a more in-depth analysis of the situation of migrant workers in Israel.

The Worker members stated that, in the case under discussion, the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination against migrant workers was obvious. Consequently, they addressed to the Government three requests: (1) to take additional measures to ensure for migrant workers a social treatment equal to that provided for its own citizens; (2) to ensure that the principle of non-discrimination against migrant workers was respected in all sectors of activities; and (3) to furnish, for the next session of the Committee of Experts, information in writing, indicating precisely the number of migrant workers (by sex, sector of activity and country of origin) employed in Israel, as well as the measures taken in the health and agricultural sectors.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the statement of the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee observed that the Committee of Experts had referred to the need to ensure that all migrant workers lawfully in the country benefited from the rights and protection available under the legislation, in practice, and enjoyed equal treatment with respect to the matters set out in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee of Experts had noted that following a decision of the High Court of Justice in the case of Kav LaOved Workers Hotline and others v. Government of Israel, the Government had taken measures regarding migrant workers employed in the caregiving and agricultural sector, with a view to increasing the protection of migrant workers and simplifying the process of changing employers. It had also noted the establishment of an Ombudsperson to deal with complaints from migrant workers. With regard to social security, the Committee of Experts had addressed certain restrictions concerning the health insurance system for migrant workers established under the Foreign Workers Act and the Foreign Workers Order.

The Committee noted the statistical data provided by the Government concerning the employment of temporary workers in certain economic sectors in 2008–09, and on the enforcement of the Foreign Workers Law and the Minimum Wage Law in 2007–08. The Government had also provided information on the measures taken to give effect to the decision of the High Court of Justice to reduce the dependency of migrant workers on their employers. The Committee noted, in particular, that the new system of employment of foreign workers introduced by Government Resolution No. 447–448 of 2006 had entered into force for the caregiving sector and was to be extended to the agricultural sector in 2009. Measures had also been taken to reduce the dependency of foreign workers on their employers in the small manufacturing and ethnic restaurants sector. The Committee further noted the information provided by the Government concerning the health insurance system for migrant workers.

The Committee noted the Government’s commitment to implement the Convention. While welcoming the range of measures taken to protect migrant workers and reduce their dependence on their employers, the Committee noted that challenges possibly remained in fully applying the Convention, including with respect to social security, as well as in certain sectors. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information on the impact of the measures to reduce migrant workers’ dependence on their employers, and the manner in which the Government was ensuring that migrant workers lawfully in the country enjoyed equal treatment, in law and in practice, with Israeli nationals with respect to the matters set out in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention. The Committee asked the Government to provide full particulars on the application of the social security system, in particular the health insurance system, to migrant workers. The Government was also requested to supply statistical information, disaggregated by sex and origin and sector of activity, on the actual number of migrants working in Israel. The Committee also requested the Government to provide additional information on the implementation of the measures taken to ensure the application of the Convention with respect to migrants employed in the agricultural, caregiving, construction and manufacturing sectors, and the results achieved.

The Committee asked the Government to include in its report on the application of the Convention, due in 2010, full information in reply to all the matters raised by this Committee and in the comments of the Committee of Experts.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

COVID-19. Measures adopted in relation with the situation of migrant workers. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that information on the COVID-19 pandemic is available in several languages on the websites of the Ministry of Health and the Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA) and that the Mesila-aid and information Centre translates the regulations adopted to counter the pandemic and disseminates posters and films. The Committee also notes that the Government specifies that due to the pandemic, it has limited or stopped entries of foreign workers. In addition, a number of measures were adopted to address the situation of foreign workers whose visas had expired and who were not able to return to their countries of origin. Specifically, the Government indicates that general extensions of expired work permits were granted to foreign workers in the construction, the agriculture and the care sectors and that PIBA stopped the enforcement of the procedures open against migrant workers in irregular status.

Article 1 of the Convention. Migration flows. In its last comment, the Committee asked the Government to continue to provide statistical data on the number of migrant workers in Israel. The Committee takes note of the information included in the report of the Government indicating that in 2018: (1) 98,214 legal foreign workers were present in the country; (2) 16,230 undocumented workers were present in the country; (3) 55,425 of them worked in the care sector (42,994 women, 7,891 men, and 4,540 gender not registered); (4) 14,420 of them worked in the construction sector (only men); (5) 22,222 worked in agriculture (20,536 men, 649 women, and 1,037 gender not registered) with only men in seasonal agriculture (190); and (6) 6341 worked as experts (5,957 men, 351 women and 33 gender not registered).

Articles 4, 7 and 10. Cooperation with other Members. Bilateral agreements. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the conclusion of bilateral agreements with major countries of origin of migrant workers, in particular in the care sector. The Committee takes note of the indication by the Government that is has concluded a bilateral agreement in this sector with the Philippines in 2018 and that it is currently negotiating with other major countries of origin. In this respect, the Committee refers the Government to the ILO General Principles and Operational Guidelines for Fair Recruitment and Related Costs inviting Members to make the international agreements on labour migration publicly available. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the ongoing negotiations for the conclusion of more bilateral agreements with countries of origin.

Article 6 (1). Caregivers. Right to change employment in case of unequal treatment or abuse. In its last comment, the Committee noted that the legislation provides for the designation of a geographical area for the visa and residence permit of foreign workers in the nursing sector and limits the number of times foreign caregivers are allowed to change employers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that foreign caregivers subject to abuses could request their transfer to another employer and asked the Government to inform on the procedure applicable to these requests and the number of transfers granted. The Government indicates in this regard t that: (1) all foreign caregivers are free to change their employers if they have made a bona fide attempt to work for the employer for whom they had received a work visa to enter the country; (2) where foreign caregivers have left their employment without prior notice, employers may file complaints that are examined by PIBA that may decide to deport the foreign worker after conducting a hearing; (3) in 2018, out of more than 15,000 reported changes of employers by foreign caregivers, only 15 complaints were received and in only one case, it was recommended that the caregiver be deported due to the abuse of visa. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 7, and Annex I, Articles 2 and 3. Private employment agencies. In its last comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on its efforts to detect abuses and fraudulent practices by private recruitment agencies. The Committee takes note of the indications by the Government that in 2018: (1) several hearings were conducted, and a number of decisions issued in relation with the activities of private employment agencies (one hearing was conducted and three decisions were issued for the care sector and one hearing was conducted and two decisions issued for the agricultural sector); (2) there were no criminal enforcements against private employment agencies in the care sector and one file in the agricultural sector; (3) home visits were regularly conducted by social workers in the care sector (four annual visits for each new employers, and two annual visits for experienced employers). While taking note of this information, the Committee refers to its comments on the application of the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181).

Enforcement. Administrative sanctions and criminal prosecutions. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure the application of the principle of no less favourable treatment. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government on the sanctions imposed to employers, according to which for 2018: (1) 1,271 administrative files were opened by PIBA leading to 424 fines imposed for unlawful employment and 492 fines imposed for other violations for a total of NIS 4,130,000.00 (USD 1,222,000); (2) a number of indictments were issued, leading to 135 verdicts for a total amount of fines of NIS 8,456,130 (USD 2,502,000); (3) 162 warnings were issued to employers, 108 for violations in relation with the employment contracts and 52 for unlawful deductions from wages. The Committee requests the Government to continue to communicate information on: (i) the number of cases of less favourable treatment of foreign workers than nationals with respect to matters set out in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) that are detected by labour inspectors; (ii) the number of such cases dealt with in Court; and (iii) the outcome of the proceedings (penalties and sanction imposed if any).

Ombudswoman. The Committee takes note of the detailed information provided by the Government on the activities of the Ombudswoman for Foreign Workers’ Rights that is responsible for: (1) raising awareness on issues within her mandate; (2) cooperate with other entities to promote the establishment of procedures and actions aimed at regulating the employment of foreign workers; (3) investigate complaints from foreign workers against their employers or the persons who facilitated their employment in Israel; (4) reject the complaint, refer the complaint to mediation proceedings, or submit or join a civil suit on behalf of the foreign worker; and (5) intervene in legal proceedings upon request or at her own initiative. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates that in 2018, the Ombudswoman collaborated with a number of parties (including civil society organizations, workers’ and employers’ organizations, and relevant ministries) for the advancement and better accessibility of migrants’ rights. The Government further emphasizes that any person who is employed in the country may contact the Ombudswoman, regardless of their status. While taking note of this information, the Committee notes that according to the data provided by the Government, in 2018, the Ombudswoman received 30 requests on behalf of workers and 148 requests on behalf of employers and that the involvement of this authority is often enough to encourage the employer to comply with his or her obligations. Noting the high proportion of complaints filed by employers, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on: (i) the nature of the complaints filed with the Ombudswoman for Foreign Workers’ Rights and on the outcome of these cases in practice (number of rejections, number of referrals and sanctions imposed); and also on (ii) the number of complaints from migrant caregivers, in particular women, about their working condition.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

Article 6 of the Convention. Equality of treatment. Foreign live-in caregivers. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled the decision of the High Court of Justice in Yolanda Gloten v. the National Labour Court (HCJ 1678/07) of 29 November 2009 confirming that live-in caregivers, both nationals and foreigners, are excluded from the applicability of the Hours of Work and Rest Law, 1951. It noted, in this regard that, the High Court also acknowledged the need for an appropriate and clear legislative framework guaranteeing adequate pay and favourable working conditions for this group of workers (mostly women). In addition, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that it was working to adopt a gradual approach towards the implementation of recommendations made to the Ministry of Economy to improve the situation of foreign caregivers, which related, among others, to amendments of the legislation and a comprehensive wage. The Committee noted also that, although both nationals and foreigners caregivers are excluded from the Hours of Work and Rest Law, the great majority of female Israeli care workers in the long-term caregiving sector are mostly employed in part-time jobs, while foreign caregivers are mostly live-in caregivers and therefore required to reside in the homes of their employers and prohibited from live-out arrangements or part-time employment. Therefore, it had requested the Government to ensure that the working conditions of foreign caregivers are in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention. In its report, the Government reiterates that the Hours of Work and Rest Law, 1951, does not apply to live-in caregivers, independently of the nationality of the workers. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information concerning the progress achieved with regard to the gradual implementation of the recommendations made to the Ministry of Economy mentioned in its previous report. The Committee observes further that, in its 2019 concluding observations, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) noted that 58 per cent of migrant workers in Israel, most of them women, are employed as caregivers on a live-in basis and expressed concern over the fact that they are excluded from the applicability of the Hours of Work and Rest Law, 1951 and that their working conditions are not effectively monitored by the labour authorities. The CESCR also noted that while Israel has concluded bilateral agreements with some of the countries of origin of migrant workers to protect their rights, workers from countries that do not have a bilateral agreement with the State party may be at risk of exploitation and abuse (E/C.12/ISR/CO/4, 12 November 2019, paragraph 28). The Committee reiterates its request to the Government: (i) to pursue its efforts, in consultation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, to ensure that the proposed legislative framework guaranteeing adequate pay and favourable working conditions for caregivers is in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention (such as for example concerning access to live-out arrangements or part-time employment); and (ii) to provide detailed information on the progress made and on any obstacles encountered in this regard. It also refers to its comments on the application of the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) and the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). Please provide excerpts from bilateral agreements with countries of origin of migrant workers, particularly of the provisions concerning the protection of migrant workers in abusive situations. The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 1 of the Convention. Migration flows. The Committee notes from the statistics provided by the Government in its report that in 2016 there were 84,485 foreign workers staying in Israel. Of these, 49,156 migrants (39,404 women and 7,377 men) were working in the nursing sector, with the majority of them originating from India (10,672) Republic of Moldova (8,672), Nepal (2,755), the Philippines (17,131) and Sri Lanka (4,972). In the construction sector, there were only male migrant workers (8,557 workers originating mostly from China and the Republic of Moldova); 22,786 migrants were working in the agriculture sector (with 95 per cent of them being Thai men). In addition, 4,308 male and 295 female skilled migrant workers entered Israel to work as experts. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical data, disaggregated by sex, nationality and sector of employment, on the number of migrant workers in Israel.

Articles 4, 7 and 10 of the Convention. The Committee notes that Israel has entered into a number of bilateral agreements and arrangements with countries of origin for the purposes of recruitment of migrant workers in the construction industry (5,775 entries from Bulgaria, Republic of Moldova and Romania), the agricultural industry (23,042 entries from Thailand), and for seasonal agricultural work (887 entries from Sri Lanka). The Government reports that in the context of these agreements, the information concerning available positions and the preconditions for such employment, the related expenses, the working conditions and the rights and obligations of foreign employees in Israel is publicized in the country of origin, and that the implementation of bilateral agreements has had an impact on the savings and the protection of the rights of migrant workers. The Committee also notes that employment contracts are explained in the worker’s language prior to signing, and migrants receive booklets on rights, and information on the hotline in their language. Noting that for the caregiving sector, which accounts for the largest number of foreign workers, there is only one pilot bilateral agreement with Nepal (under which 60 migrants entered Israel), the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether any consideration is being given to conclude bilateral agreements with major countries of origin of migrants recruited in the caregiving sector, such as India, the Republic of Moldova and the Philippines.

Article 3. Misleading propaganda. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning steps taken to prevent and combat the dissemination of false or misleading propaganda to the national population.

Article 6(1). Equal treatment with respect to social security. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning the number of cases of non-compliance by the employer with the obligation to arrange medical insurance for migrant workers employed by them. It notes that, in 2016, fines were imposed in 421 cases for failure to pay for medical insurance.

Article 6. Caregivers. Right to change employment in case of unequal treatment or abuse. The Committee refers to its previous comments in which it noted concerns that the implementation of the Entry into Israel Law (Amendment No. 21) of 16 May 2011 could result in reinstating the “restrictive employment relationship” of migrant workers with their employers, previously criticized by the High Court of Justice in 2006. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that following complaints from elderly persons and persons with disabilities in need of long-term care, two sets of regulations have entered into force in order to avoid abuse of the system. The Committee notes that the Entry into Israel Regulations (Designation of Geographical Areas for Engagement of Employees in the Nursing Sector) 5774-2014 determine the geographical area of the visa and residence permit and movement between areas (section 3), and that the Entry into Israel Regulations (Means of Control over Movement of Foreign Employees in the Nursing Sector, 5774-2014 regulates the number of times a foreign caregiver is allowed to change employer. The Committee notes that a foreign caregiver may normally only change employment three times in a two-year period (section 2 of the Regulations) but that exceptional circumstances of the nursing care patient or the foreign worker may apply (section 4). Pursuant to section 3(a) and (b) of the Regulation, where it is found that a foreign caregiver has left his or her employment due to tangible worsening of conditions, or due to abuse of the employee, he or she will, a priori, not be considered to have abused his or her visa. The Government further indicates that according to the procedures of the Population and Immigration Authority foreign caregivers are required to give written advance notice of their intention to end their employment, except in cases in which the employment-related abuse makes continuing the employment in the advance notice period unreasonable. The Government explains that these procedures have been put in place to protect elderly persons and persons with severe disabilities in need of care from harmful situations in which foreign caregivers stop caring for them without advance notice. The Government reports that the geographic limitation of the visa and residence has not affected the right of foreign caregivers to freely change placements, and that in practice, in the period of two years during which these regulations have been in force, only a small number of hearings have been carried out, and no cases of abuse of the visa have been found. Hearings were also carried out and warnings were issued to foreign caregivers in several cases, but no decisions to cancel or limit visas were taken over the period in which the procedure has been in place, nor were there any refusals regarding requests from foreign workers in long-term nursing to change employers. The Government further confirms that the foreign caregivers arriving in Israel are fully informed of their obligations and rights, and refers to the Foreign Workers’ Handbook, updated in 2017. The Committee takes due note of the explanations by the Government and requests it to continue to monitor the situation to ensure that the above Regulations and procedures in place regarding geographical employment mobility, change of employment and advance notice, do not negatively impact on the equal treatment of foreign caregivers with national caregivers. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the number of transfers to another employer of foreign workers in the caregiving sector that have been requested on the basis that it would be unreasonable to continue employment, the outcome of these requests, and the applicable procedures to address such requests.

Article 7, and Annex I, Articles 2 and 3. Private employment agencies. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the procedures for investigation of complaints of alleged abuses and fraudulent practices of private employment agencies. The Government also reports that in fields in which bilateral agreements for recruitment of foreign workers are in place, no abuses of the current procedures have been found, as checks and balances are in place to avoid abuse and overcharging of fees. In fields in which bilateral agreements have not yet been put into place, other limitations exist, such as the requirement placed on such agencies to ensure that at least 95 per cent of recruited foreign workers who are currently in Israel for that economic branch are placed in conformity with the laws and regulations, before new recruitment orders from such agencies will be honoured. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the results of the monitoring activities to detect abuse or fraudulent practices by private recruitment agencies, in particular by agencies that recruit for those sectors for which no bilateral agreements have been concluded, such as the caregiving sector, including any administrative or penal sanctions imposed.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the administrative sanctions imposed on employers in 2016 with respect to prohibited deductions from wages, as well as those for non-compliance with the terms of the employment contracts by the employer. It also notes the number of claims of non-payment of salary or salary benefits that were submitted to the Commissioner of Labour Rights of Foreign Workers. With respect to the supervisory responsibilities of private licenced recruitment agencies in the caregiving sector, including regular visits and submission of reporting of suspected abuses to relevant authorities, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the role and responsibilities of the supervising social worker recruited by the recruitment agency for this purpose, who is under the supervision of the National Supervising Inspector of Recruitment Agency Social Workers in the Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA). According to the Government, this system ensures that each foreign caregiver benefits from supervision, assistance, training and placement throughout their stay in Israel. While appreciating the efforts by the Government to seek the best mechanism to monitor the employment relationship between foreign caregivers and their employers, the Committee recalls that foreign caregivers should be able to claim their rights effectively on equal footing with nationals, as provided for in Article 6(1)(d) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on activities by the private recruitment agencies to supervise the employment relationship in the caregiving sector through regular visits by the social workers and on specific problems or complaints submitted by foreign workers and employers to them that have been reported by these agencies to the competent authorities, and the outcome of these cases. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the number, nature and outcome of claims filed with the judicial or administrative bodies by foreign caregivers, as well as by Israeli caregivers, against their employers for non-compliance with the terms of their employment contract or because of less favourable treatment with respect to the matters set out in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention. Please continue to provide information regarding the enforcement, mediation and educational activities of the Commissioner of Labour Rights of Foreign Workers, including progress made in coordinating the follow-up of complaints received among enforcement entities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 6 of the Convention. Equality of treatment (foreign caregivers). The Committee recalls its previous observation regarding the exclusion of live-in caregivers from the applicability of the Hours of Work and Rest Law 1951, and the concerns raised that a discriminatory and inferior legal regime would be applied to women migrant workers. It also recalls the heavy dependence of the care sector on the work of live-in foreign caregivers, and the importance, in the context of proposed reforms regarding the nursing sector, to ensure proper working conditions and effective and accessible complaints mechanisms and means of redress to foreign caregivers in line with Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that 49,156 workers (or 58 per cent of all foreign workers) were employed in the nursing sector in 2016 and that at least 80 per cent of them were women. The Committee also notes that foreign caregivers continue to be required to reside in the homes of their employers and that live-out arrangements or part-time employment are prohibited (Foreign Workers’ Handbook, updated in 2017). The Committee previously noted that the 63,000 female Israeli care workers in the long-term caregiving sector were mostly employed in part-time jobs through nursing care companies. No comparable data are provided on the number of Israeli workers in the long-term caregiving sector in 2016. Regarding measures to improve the situation of foreign caregivers, the Committee refers to its observation on the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), in which it notes the Government’s intention to adopt a gradual approach towards the implementation of recommendations made to the Ministry of Economy to improve the situation of foreign caregivers, which related, among others, to amendments of the legislation and a comprehensive wage. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that the collective agreements which have been adopted in the past few years have established a minimum wage, far higher than the statutory minimum wage, which has had an impact on migrants’ income. Therefore, the rise in the minimum wage should be considered an appropriate compensation for those foreign live-in caregivers who have no possibility to have compensation for overtime. The Government also states that in most cases workers in the sector do not work more than a regular working day. Recalling the heavy dependence of the care sector on the work of live-in foreign caregivers, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the close correlation between the quality of the working and living conditions of the care providers and the quality and continuity of the care provided, in particular in the case of long-term care. Considering that the caregiving sector is the largest sector in which foreign workers are employed and taking due note of the Government’s intention to find an appropriate solution towards improving their situation, the Committee refers to its comments on Convention No. 100 and asks the Government to continue its efforts, in consultation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, to ensure that the proposed legislative framework guaranteeing adequate pay and favourable working conditions for caregivers is in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made and on any obstacles encountered in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Articles 4, 7 and 10 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that Israel has entered into a number of bilateral agreements and arrangements with countries of origin of foreign workers for the purposes of recruitment, which are currently being implemented. It also notes that Israel signed bilateral agreements with Thailand and Sri Lanka regulating the recruitment of workers in construction and agriculture. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the countries with which bilateral agreements and arrangements have been concluded, and on the manner in which recruitment is being organized in the context of these agreements.

Article 3. Misleading propaganda. The Committee recalls the role of private recruitment agencies in the provision of accurate information to migrants. The Committee notes with interest the “Foreign Workers’ Rights Handbook” of 2012 published by the Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA) of the Ministry of Interior, which includes information on rights and obligations of workers and employers, as well as available complaints mechanisms and support services. Recalling that Article 3 also includes measures targeting the national population, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken to prevent and combat the dissemination of false or misleading propaganda, including xenophobic stereotypes about migrant workers, to the national population.

Article 6(1). Equal treatment with respect to social security. The Committee refers to its previous observation and recalls that the reason given by the Government for setting up a separate private health insurance system for migrant workers was due to the relative short stay (usually a period up to five years) of temporary migrant workers working in Israel. Under this system, persons employing migrant workers are required to arrange, at their expense, medical insurance for the entire period of employment which shall include a basket of services determined by the Minister of Health. The Committee notes the Government’s confirmation that migrant workers who stay in Israel for a period of up to five years enjoy equality of treatment with national workers as regards maternity and employment injury benefits. With regard to coverage in respect of benefits such as unemployment, old-age and survivors’ benefits, the Committee refers to its comments on the Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention, 1962 (No. 118). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the number of cases submitted to the Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA) regarding non-compliance by the employer with the obligation to arrange medical insurance for migrant workers employed by them.

Article 7, and Annex I, Articles 2 and 3. Private employment agencies. The Committee notes with interest the ratification on 4 October 2012 of the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181). It also notes the amendments to the Employment Service Act of 2004 and the rules put in place regarding recruitment agencies in the caregiving field, including the registration of the foreign caregiver and the employer with the recruitment agency and the measures to encourage placements for foreign caregivers who are already in Israel and whose maximum employment period has not yet expired. It also notes the obligation of recruitment agencies, when recruiting caregivers from abroad, to certify the receipt by the worker of the written employment contract, suitable lodgings, the rights booklet and medical insurance, and to supervise the employment relationship between the employer and the worker through regular visits. The private recruitment agency is also responsible for dealing with any employer or worker complaints and must immediately report suspected abuses to the relevant authorities subject to administrative and/or criminal sanctions and/or confiscation of the bond. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on monitoring activities of private recruitment agencies in the caregiving sector, including information on specific problems or complaints submitted by foreign workers and employers that have been reported to the competent authorities.

Enforcement. The Committee notes that most of the mediation activities of the Commissioner of Labour Rights of Foreign Workers concerned non-payment of wages, withholding of social rights or violations of the Wages Protection Law and that efforts are under way to improve follow-up of complaints and coordination among enforcement entities. The Commissioner also established a website in 2010 which was made available to users in 11 languages as of 2012, and engaged in meetings with civil society, and workers’ and employers’ organizations, and disseminated publications. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information regarding the enforcement, mediation and educational activities of the Commissioner of Labour Rights of Foreign Workers, including progress made in coordinating the follow-up of complaints received among enforcement entities. Please also include information regarding the number and nature of complaints submitted by foreign workers to the Commissioner, and the follow-up given to them.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Statistics on migrant workers. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that in 2011, 5,470 permits were issued to migrant workers in the construction sector (with 83 per cent of the workers coming from China and 6 per cent from the Republic of Moldova); 24,582 permits to migrant workers in the agriculture sector (with 95 per cent of the workers coming from Thailand); and 45,886 permits to migrant workers in the nursing care sector (with 39 per cent of the workers coming from the Philippines, 16 per cent from the Republic of Moldova, 14 per cent from India and 13 per cent from Nepal). There are also skilled migrant workers in the industrial and restaurant sectors and foreign specialists. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical data, disaggregated by sex, nationality and sector of employment, on the number of migrant workers in Israel.

Article 6 of the Convention. Equality of treatment (foreign caregivers). The Committee recalls its previous observation raising concerns that the implementation of the Entry into Israel Law (Amendment No. 21) of 16 May 2011 – making it possible to restrict the transfer of foreign workers between employers by issuing work permits that are limited to certain geographical regions or to certain sub-branches of the caregiving sector – could result in reinstating the “restrictive employment relationship” of migrant workers with their employers, previously criticized by the High Court of Justice in 2006. The Committee also recalls the decision of the High Court of Justice in Yolanda Gloten v. the National Labour Court (HCJ 1678/07) of 2009 excluding live-in caregivers from the applicability of the Hours of Work and Rest Law 1951 and the concerns expressed by the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) that the Gloten judgment facilitated the application of a discriminatory and inferior legal regime to the work of women migrants. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that there are 63,000 female Israeli care workers in the long-term nursing sector who are, unlike foreign caregivers, mostly employed in part-time jobs through nursing care companies. The Government also details the various reasons for the dependency of the care sector on the work of live-in foreign caregivers and the difficulties related to the period of notice by caregivers who want to leave the employer with a disability or the elderly employer they care for. The Government further indicates that 18,801 foreign workers in long-term nursing care moved between authorized employers in 2011, and that there were no refusals regarding requests to change employers.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a governmental staff committee will submit recommendations regarding an appropriate legislative framework guaranteeing adequate pay and favourable working conditions for caregivers, after which a hearing will take place in the High Court of Justice. The Government also indicates that the Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA) of the Ministry of Interior is working on a new set of regulations and procedures for the caregiving sector. While the text of these regulations and procedures are not yet at its disposal, the Committee notes from the Foreign Workers’ Rights Handbook, to which the Government refers in its report and which was last updated on 1 October 2012, that foreign caregivers continue to be required to reside in the homes of their employers and that live-out arrangements or part-time employment are prohibited. Foreign caregivers are also required to respect a special and longer period of prior written notice (varying from seven days to one month), except in “circumstances in which it is unreasonable to require continued employment”. The written notice is to be given to the recruitment agency as well as to the employer or the employer’s representative. The Committee notes that a foreign caregiver who leaves the employer without prior written notice or before the minimum notification period may be liable to deportation after a hearing by the PIBA. Taking due note of the Government’s detailed explanations regarding the heavy dependence of the care sector on the work of live-in foreign caregivers, the Committee considers it all the more important in the context of the proposed reforms that proper working conditions, including remuneration, hours of work and overtime arrangements, and effective and accessible complaints mechanisms and means of redress, are being ensured for foreign caregivers so as to ensure treatment no less favourable than that which applies to Israeli caregivers in respect of the matters referred to in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention. Considering that the caregiving sector is the largest sector in which foreign workers are employed, the large majority of whom are women, the Committee urges the Government to make every effort to ensure that the proposed legislative framework guaranteeing adequate pay and favourable working conditions for caregivers and the regulations and procedures to be developed by the PIBA are in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention, and to expedite this process. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the outcome of this process, including copies of the text of any new regulations and procedures adopted or proposed as well as on the outcome of the further hearing in the High Court of Justice. The Committee also requests the Government to provide copies of any regulations adopted by the Minister of Interior pursuant to the amendments to the Entry into Israel Law, and information on the number of transfers to another employer of foreign workers in the caregiving sector requested on the basis that it would be unreasonable to continue employment, the outcome of these requests, and the applicable procedures to address such requests.

Enforcement and access to legal proceedings. Further to the above, the Committee recalls the exclusion of the largest group of foreign workers, foreign domestic caregivers who are primarily women, from the protection of the Commissioner for the Rights of Foreign Workers, except in cases of human trafficking, conditions of enslavement or forced labour, and cases of sexual abuse, violence or sexual harassment. The Committee had also noted that the monitoring of the employment relationship between these workers and their employers was apparently left mainly to licensed recruitment agencies. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that the Commissioner can suggest that the worker apply for mediation and that there is no obstacle for an employee in the nursing care sector to institute legal proceedings against the employer other than through the Commissioner. The Committee recalls the concerns expressed by the IUF that lower labour courts would be compelled to reject lawsuits from foreign caregivers for overtime pay due to the Gloten judgment. Recalling that foreign caregivers should be able to enjoy and claim effectively their rights on an equal footing with nationals, as provided in Article 6(1)(d) of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide full information on the manner in which foreign caregivers lawfully in the country can assert their rights in respect of the matters referred to in the Convention in practice and claim compensation. The Committee also requests the Government to include information on the manner in which Israeli caregivers can assert and claim their rights and on the number and nature of complaints filed by foreign and national caregivers with the judicial and administrative bodies and their outcome. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number and nature of violations of the relevant laws and regulations identified and addressed by the various responsible authorities. Recalling the Government’s intention to study with a view to applying, in cooperation with the social partners, the best practices for the treatment of foreign workers in line with the provisions of the Convention, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to indicate any progress made in this regard.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Articles 4 and 10 of the Convention. Facilitation of departure, journey and reception and related agreements with the authorities of the sending State. The Committee notes that the Government is still negotiating with the Governments of Thailand and Sri Lanka concerning bilateral agreements for recruitment of foreign agricultural workers, including through assistance of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Once these agreements are concluded, the Government hopes to conclude similar agreements in additional sectors. The Committee requests the Government to continue to communicate information on the bilateral agreements with the Governments of Thailand and Sri Lanka, as well as indications as to whether negotiations have started to conclude similar arrangements in other sectors.

Articles 2 and 3. Provision of information and steps against misleading propaganda. The Committee notes that the Government has continued to distribute information booklets for foreign workers including information on basic labour rights and relevant procedures for filing complaints, including in countries of origin. The Government also states that companies and employment agencies for foreign workers are required to present the relevant government agency with a signed affidavit setting out that information has been provided to each worker registered with the company. The Government indicates that information on penalties imposed for non-compliance is not available. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to provide accurate information to migrant workers and the steps taken against misleading propaganda relating to emigration and immigration. It asks the Government to take the necessary steps to monitor compliance by private recruitment agencies and employment agencies with their obligations regarding the provision of information, with a view to assessing whether these types of measures are effective in preventing misleading propaganda on migration for employment.

Annex II, Article 3. Private employment agencies. The Committee notes the Government’ statement that a draft amendment to the Private Employment Agencies Act is aimed at raising the maximum jail sentence (from six months to three years) which may be imposed in cases of violation of the amended law concerning fees taken from foreign workers. The Government also indicates that in 2009 permits of 20 private agencies were revoked and seven sanctions were imposed for unlawful fee collections from foreign workers. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that initial steps have been taken to advance the ratification of the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide up to date information on the regulatory framework governing the activities of agencies involved in the recruitment of foreign workers as well as information on the enforcement of the legislation. Recalling that the ratification and application of Convention No. 181 would strengthen the monitoring of private employment agencies and the protection of migrant workers, the Committee asks Government to continue to communicate any developments which, in consultation with the social partners, might occur with regard to the ratification of this Convention.

Article 6(1)(d). Legal proceedings. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 1(32) of the Foreign Workers Law the submission of a complaint to the Commissioner for Rights of Foreign Employees or the exercise of the Commissioner’s powers and functions, including the bringing of a civil action in court, shall not per se prevent the lawful deportation of a foreign employee from Israel nor delay such a deportation. The Committee recalls that for the right to equal treatment to be enjoyed in practice, it is important that effective mechanisms are in place to address situations of non-respect of this right, including complaints procedures for migrant workers that are accessible and effective. In this context, the Committee considers that the application of section 1(32) may be an important disincentive for migrant workers to seek redress in cases of unequal treatment. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the nature and number of cases in which lawful deportation has been suspended following a complaint submitted by a migrant worker to the Commissioner for Rights of Foreign Employees.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2009 and the resulting conclusions of the Conference Committee. It also notes the information in the Government’s report, including legislation and statistics. The Committee further notes the communication, received 25 July 2011, from the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) and the Government’s reply thereto.

The Committee notes from the data provided by the Government that, in 2009, 54,000 temporary migrant workers were lawfully employed in care giving, 25,000 in agriculture, 5,000 in construction, 500 in manufacturing and 500 as ethnic chefs. The majority of the temporary migrant workers in the care giving sector are women, while in the other sectors the great majority of the foreign workers employed are men. The IUF indicates that migrant workers mainly originate from China, India, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide updated statistical information on the actual number of temporary migrant workers present in Israel, disaggregated by sex, country of origin and age, and the sectors in which they work.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 98th Session, June 2009)

Article 6 of the Convention. Equal treatment. The Committee previously noted that following a decision of the High Court of Justice in the case of Kav LaOved Workers Hotline and others v. Government of Israel (2006), the Government had taken measures with a view to increasing the protection of migrant workers employed in the care giving and agricultural sectors, and simplifying the process of changing employers. The Committee notes that the Conference Committee welcomed some of the measures taken by the Government but considered that challenges possibly remained in fully applying the Convention in certain sectors. It requested further information on the impact of the measures in reducing migrant workers’ dependence on individual employers, as this is an important aspect in ensuring that equal treatment is applied to migrant workers in practice. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that under the new employment system, foreign workers are free to change employers and agencies, and that workers deciding to leave their employer no longer have to register with the Minister of Interior, but rather with an employment agency (in the construction industry) or with a licensed recruitment agency (in homecare and agriculture). In the agricultural sector, the Government indicates that, along with issuing additional employment permits, emphasis is placed on concluding bilateral agreements to ensure fair and transparent recruitment of foreign agricultural workers. With respect to caregivers, the Government states that both employers and temporary foreign caregivers are required to register with one of the licensed recruitment agencies, which are obliged to send periodically a representative to the home of the employer to oversee the employment relationship and resolve misunderstandings. The Committee also notes, however, that on 16 May 2011, the Government passed the Entry into Israel Law (Amendment No. 21), 5771-2011, authorizing the Minister of the Interior to determine the foreign workers’ field of occupation in his or her visa and residence permit, and to adopt regulations limiting the number of times a foreign worker in the nursing profession may transfer to a new employer and limiting employment of such workers to specific geographical areas. The Committee notes that the implementation in practice of the Entry into Israel Law (Amendment No. 21), 5771-2011 could result in reinstating the “restrictive employment relationship” of migrant workers with their employers previously criticized in the decision of the High Court of Justice (2006). The Committee therefore asks the Government to provide full details on the implementation in practice of the Entry into Israel Law (Amendment No. 21), 5771-2011, including information on the number of transfers of foreign workers in the nursing profession presently allowed, how many transfers have been requested and how many refused, and the reasons for such refusal. The Committee also asks the Government to continue monitoring the impact of the new employment system on migrant workers employed in agriculture, construction, manufacturing and as ethnic chefs, and to provide information in this regard, as well as copies of bilateral agreements concluded for the agricultural sector.

Equal treatment of caregivers (remuneration, hours of work, overtime arrangements). The Committee notes the decision of the High Court of Justice in Yolanda Gloten v. the National Labour Court (HCJ 1678/07) of 29 November 2009 (hereafter the Gloten Judgement). In this case, the High Court decided not to consider an appeal against the ruling of the National Labour Court that no overtime pay could be granted with respect to a case of a foreign worker providing care on a live-in basis since the exceptions regarding the scope of application set out in sections 30(A)(5) and (6) of the Hours of Work and Rest Law 1951 applied. The Committee notes that the High Court of Justice concluded that the current legal framework did not offer a proper mechanism suitable for the unique situation of caregivers, and that a narrow and partial interpretation of the law concerning overtime pay might lead to harmful consequences. The High Court, therefore, rejected the appeal due to the difficulty of applying the Law only partially, and because the Court did not consider that the round-the-clock live-in employment of caregivers corresponded to the general framework of protective labour law. The Committee notes that the IUF expresses concern at the impact of the Gloten Judgement on the situation of the large number of migrant women providing care on a round-the-clock and live-in basis and refers in this regard to several examples of regional labour court judgements rejecting lawsuits by migrant caregivers for overtime pay under the Hours of Work and Rest Law, citing the Gloten Judgement. The IUF also draws attention to the Court’s reasoning according to which in circumstances where the application of the labour law is expected to “harm” migrant workers (based on the assumptions that increasing wages due to overtime worked may reduce their employment opportunities), the possibility of diverging from the provisions of protective labour law should be considered. According to the IUF, the Gloten judgement facilitates the application of a discriminatory and inferior legal regime to the work of women migrants.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that the exceptions set out in sections 30(A)(5) and (6) of the Hours of Work and Rest Law, on which the High Court of Justice is relying, apply to all caregivers, whether local or foreign workers. The Committee notes that sections 30(A)(5) and (6) provide in general terms that the Law shall not apply “to persons employed in positions requiring a special degree of trust”, and to “employees, the conditions and circumstances of whose employment render it impossible for the employer to control working hours and hours of rest”. The Government also states that an application for an additional hearing in this matter is presently before the High Court of Justice and that it is awaiting its outcome. The Committee notes the High Court’s acknowledgement of the need for an appropriate and clear legislative framework guaranteeing adequate pay and favourable working conditions, which at the time of the decision was apparently being developed by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor (MoITAL). The Committee recalls that the Convention requires ratifying states to undertake to apply to migrant workers lawfully in the country, without discrimination based on nationality, race, sex and religion, treatment not less favourable than nationals, with respect to the matters set out in Article 6(1)(a)(i), in law and in practice. The Committee notes that foreign caregivers, 80 per cent of whom are women, constitute the large majority of migrant workers. While no information has been provided on the actual situation of local caregivers, the Committee notes that only a small number of local citizens are willing to work as caregivers, as acknowledged in the Gloten Judgement, suggesting that the present policy applying to caregivers, may, in practice, affect disproportionally female foreign caregivers. The Committee therefore asks the Government to provide information on the outcome of the additional hearing before the High Court of Justice. Understanding that the Foreign Workers’ Committee of the Knesset has recommended an extensive reform of the care giving sector, the Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on any developments in this regard and hopes that such a reform will ensure that foreign caregivers are treated not less favourably than Israeli caregivers with respect to remuneration, hours of work, overtime arrangements, and other matters set out in Article 6(1)(a)(i) of the Convention. The Committee further asks the Government to indicate all measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in law and in practice, women migrant workers are treated on an equal footing with their male counterparts, foreign or otherwise, in terms of working and living conditions, work-related tax and access to the justice system.

Equal treatment with respect to social security. Having noted restrictions concerning the health insurance system for migrant workers established under the Foreign Workers Law and the Foreign Workers Order (Prohibition of Unlawful Employment and Assurance of Fair Conditions) (Health Service Basket for Workers) 5761-2001, the Committee had requested the Government to clarify the reasons for establishing a separate health insurance system for migrant workers and for the exclusions or limitations provided under sections 3 and 4 of the Order. The Committee notes that during the Conference Committee’s discussion, concerns were expressed regarding insufficient lack of coverage regarding sickness, unemployment and old-age and care expenses relating to maternity, and that challenges remained with respect to social security. The Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that the reasons for setting up a separate private health insurance system is due to the relative short stay (usually a period up to five years) of temporary migrant workers coming to work in Israel. The Government affirms that the system contains the same basket of medical services included in the national medical insurance scheme, and indicates that the Inter-ministerial Committee on Social Rights and Obligations with respect to Foreign Workers is considering favourably the inclusion of the rights that have hitherto been excluded in the foreign workers’ health basket. The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government regarding the enforcement of the health insurance obligation by the Population, Immigration and Borders Authority (PIBA) and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labour (MoITAL), and the procedures to be followed by employers and recruitment agencies to prove or confirm that valid medical insurance has been arranged for foreign workers. Noting that no information has been provided on how it is being ensured that all workers admitted to Israel under the Foreign Workers Law fully enjoy the right to treatment not less favourable than Israeli nationals regarding social security in respect of maternity, sickness, unemployment and old age, the Committee asks the Government to provide full details in this regard in its next report. It also requests the Government to indicate the outcome of the discussions of the Inter-ministerial Committee on Social Rights and Obligations with respect to Foreign Workers.

Enforcement and access to legal proceedings. The Committee recalls the importance of dissuasive sanctions and effective enforcement of relevant laws in ensuring equal treatment between foreign workers and nationals. The Committee notes that in the course of 2008 and 2009 the PIBA in the Ministry of the Interior became the new competent authority regarding issues involving migrant workers, thus replacing the Foreign Workers’ Unit in MoITAL. It notes from the Government’s report that according to enforcement statistics for 2009, 930 investigative files were opened against employers suspected of violations of the Foreign Workers Law and 1,662 administrative fines were imposed on employers for such violations; 196 fines were imposed on employers for violations of the Minimum Wage Law and 171 judgements rendered. The Committee also notes that in March 2010, the Foreign Workers Law was amended to strengthen the institution of the Commissioner for the Rights of Foreign Employees in the sphere of labour laws (section 1V(a)). The Commissioner has the authority to intervene in legal proceedings, to handle complaints of migrant workers against employers, actual employers, employment agencies and labour contractors, and to file civil lawsuits with the labour court or other qualified courts. However, the Committee notes that the Commissioner will not be able to exercise any of these powers with respect to complaints lodged by foreign domestic caregivers against their employers, except in cases of human trafficking, conditions of enslavement or forced labour, and cases of sexual abuse, violence or sexual harassment (section 1(31)(3)). The Committee considers, particularly in light of the recent amendments to the Entry into Israel Law and the Gloten Judgement, that excluding the largest group of foreign workers, primarily also women, from the protection of the Commissioner for the Rights of Foreign Workers while leaving monitoring of the employment relationship between these workers and their employers to licensed recruitment agencies, raises concerns as to whether foreign caregivers are able, on an equal footing with nationals, to enjoy and claim effectively their rights in respect of the matters referred to in Article 6(1)(a)–(c) in practice, as provided for by Article 6(1)(d) of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the reasons for excluding foreign caregivers from the mandate of the Commissioner for the Rights of Foreign Workers, and to provide full information on how foreign caregivers lawfully in the country are able to enjoy equal treatment, in law and in practice, with Israeli nationals with respect to the matters set out in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention. Please include in this regard information on the number and nature of complaints submitted by foreign and national caregivers with the different authorities, and their outcome. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide enforcement statistics on the number and nature of violations of the relevant laws and regulations identified and addressed by the various responsible authorities, including indications as to the sanctions imposed and the main sectors of employment, including construction, agriculture and manufacturing. Noting further the Government’s intention to study and internalize, in cooperation with the social partners, the best practices for the treatment of foreign workers in line with the provisions of the Convention, the Committee asks the Government to indicate any progress made in this regard.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Articles 4 and 10 of the Convention. Facilitation of departure, journey and reception and related agreements with the authorities of the sending State. The Committee understands that the Government has cooperated with the Government of Thailand with a view to facilitating the departure, journey and reception of migrant workers from Thailand to Israel, including through assistance of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the arrangements with the Thai authorities as well as indications as to whether similar arrangements are being considered with respect to other countries from which a sufficiently large number of migrant workers are being recruited for employment in Israel.

Articles 2 and 3. Provision of information and steps against misleading propaganda. The Committee notes that section 69I of the Employment Service Act and the Employment Service (Provisions of Information) Regulations, 2006 require private employment agencies to provide information to migrant workers, in writing and prior to his or her arrival in Israel, on the permitted recruitment fees and other information that could help safeguard the rights of the migrant workers and prevent their exploitation, including the job description and an estimation of the expected wage in Israel. The employment agencies licensed to employ foreign workers in the construction sector are required to distribute a booklet issued by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labour in different languages to the foreign workers employed by them. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to provide accurate information to migrant workers and the steps taken against misleading propaganda relating to emigration and immigration. It also asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to monitor compliance by private recruitment agencies and employment agencies with their obligations regarding the provision of information, and indications as to penalties imposed for non-compliance with the Convention.

Annex II. Article 3.  Private employment agencies. The Committee notes the provisions regarding the regulation of the activities of private employment agencies contained in the Employment Service Act, as amended. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide up to date information on the regulatory framework governing the activities of agencies involved in the recruitment of foreign workers as well as information on the enforcement of the legislation.

In addition, the Committee recalls that, in March 2006, a Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration was published by the ILO which includes non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights-based approach to labour migration. It provides for the licensing and supervision of placement services for migrant workers in accordance with the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181), and its Recommendation (No. 188). It refers to its 2005 direct request on the application of the Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 96), in which the Committee recalled that the ILO Governing Body invited the States parties to Convention No. 96, to contemplate ratifying, as appropriate, the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181), which will ipso jure involve the immediate denunciation of Convention No. 96 (document GB.273/LILS/4(Rev.1), 273rd Session, Geneva, November 1998). Noting that the ratification and application of Convention No. 181 would strengthen the monitoring of private employment agencies and the protection of migrant workers, the Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in position to communicate any developments which, in consultation with the social partners, might occur with regard to the ratification of this Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2010.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that according to the Government, at the time of reporting, some 12,000 migrant workers were lawfully employed in the construction sector, 1,500 in manufacturing and 900 in restaurants. Data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics for 2007 suggest that migrant workers (excluding those from the occupied Palestinian territories) were employed in 69,900 jobs, out of which 10,100 were in construction and 23,900 in agriculture. The Committee understands that a large majority of foreign workers employed as caregivers are women. The countries from which the largest groups of migrant workers come to Israel are the Philippines, Thailand, Romania and China. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated statistical information on the actual number of temporary migrant workers present in Israel, disaggregated by sex and the sectors in which they work.

Article 6 of the Convention. Equal treatment. The Committee notes the decision of the High Court of Justice in the case of Kav LaOved Workers Hotline and others v. Government of Israel (HCJ 4542/02) of 30 March 2006. In this case, the Court held that making the residence permits given to temporary migrant workers conditional upon the workers working for a specific employer, which means that migrant workers leaving or losing their jobs automatically became illegal aliens, violates their dignity and liberty. The Court had before it information showing that the excessive power held by employers over temporary migrant workers under such a “restrictive employment relationship” resulted in situations where migrant workers are denied their rights under the labour legislation, including regarding remuneration and hours of work, with no possibility to seek redress without taking the risk of losing their jobs and residence permits. In considering relevant international law, the Court held that the Ministry of Interior, when making use of its power to determine conditions for giving a visa or residence permit is limited, inter alia, by the principle of non-discrimination between workers who are citizens and workers from foreign countries as enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention.

The Committee recalls that Article 6 requires ratifying States to apply, without discrimination in respect of nationality, race, religion or sex, to migrant workers lawfully within the country, treatment no less favourable than that which applies to its own nationals in respect of the matters referred to in Article 6 (1)(a) to (d), including remuneration, hours of work, and legal proceedings relating to the matters referred to in the Convention. These provisions of the Convention envisage equal treatment of migrant workers in law, but also in practice. The Committee is concerned that the information considered by the High Court of Justice in its abovementioned decision indicates that many migrant workers apparently do not benefit from the rights and protection available under the legislation, in practice. The Committee considers that reducing the migrant workers’ dependency on individual employers and thus limiting the power exercised by employers over their foreign workers, is indeed an important aspect in ensuring that equal treatment is applied to migrant workers in practice, along with dissuasive sanctions and effective enforcement of relevant laws.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that resolution No. 447-448 adopted by the Government on 12 September 2006 sets out new modalities for employing migrant workers in the care-giving and agricultural sectors with a view to increasing the protection of migrant workers and to simplifying the process of changing employers. Migrant workers who lose their employment may register with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labour for a placement with a new employer. The Government also introduced legislation prohibiting private agencies from charging migrant workers abusive recruitment fees and established an Ombudsperson to deal with complaints from migrant workers. Following investigations by the Enforcement Division of the Foreign Workers Department in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labour, administrative fines were imposed on employers in 5,861 cases for offences related to migrant workers in 2006, and 3,743 new cases were opened. The Ombudsperson received 449 complaints in 2006. These figures demonstrate the attention paid by the authorities to law enforcement, but also suggest a high level of non-compliance with the legislation. The Committee requests the Government to take further measures to ensure that the treatment extended to migrant workers employed in Israel under the Foreign Workers Act, is no less favourable than that which is applied to nationals, in law and in practice, with regard to the matters listed in Article 6(1)(a) to (d) of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number and nature of violations of the relevant laws and regulations identified and addressed by the various responsible authorities, including indications as to the sanctions imposed. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the practical implementation of the modalities adopted by Resolution No. 447-448 regarding the agricultural and care-giving sector, as well as information on how the concern of reducing the migrant workers’ dependency on the employer is addressed in other sectors, such as construction or manufacturing.

Equal treatment in respect of social security. The Committee further notes that under section 1D(a) of the Foreign Workers Act, the employer, at its own expense, is to arrange medical insurance for the foreign worker, which shall include the basket of services that the Minster of Health prescribes for this purpose by order. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Foreign Workers Order (Prohibition of Unlawful Employment and Assurance of Fair Conditions) (Health Services Basket for Workers), 5761-2001, lists in section 2 the services to be included in the insurance arranged for the foreign worker. Section 3 provides for certain entitlement exceptions and section 4 limits the entitlements regarding certain services for migrant workers, including entitlements related to pregnancy and medical conditions that existed before the migrant worker took up his or her employment in Israel. The Committee recalls that under Article 6(1)(b), migrant workers have the right to treatment no less favourable than that which applies to nationals in respect to social security, including in relation to sickness and maternity.  The Committee considers that the establishment of a separate health insurance system for migrant workers which excludes migrant workers from certain entitlements and which limits certain entitlements, may not be in conformity with Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the reasons for establishing a separate health insurance system for migrant workers and for the exclusions and limitations provided for under sections 3 and 4 of the abovementioned Order. It also requests the Government to indicate how it is ensured that all migrant workers admitted to Israel under the Foreign Workers Act  fully enjoy their right to treatment no less favourable than that which applies to Israeli nationals regarding social security in respect of sickness and  maternity.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2010.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information supplied in the Government’s report and particularly the amended version of the Foreign Workers Law, 5751-1991, that came into force on 1 July 2000. The Committee notes that the main amendments aim at securing the foreign workers’ rights and at imposing more severe punishment for violation of the law. It would be grateful if the Government would provide further particulars regarding the enforcement of this law.

1. In view of the growing role of private agencies in the international migration process, the Government is asked to state how this tendency has had any repercussions on the application of Annexes I and II of the Convention which deal with recruitment, placing and conditions of labour of migrants recruited otherwise than under government-sponsored arrangements for group transfer and migrant workers recruited under government-sponsored arrangements for group transfer. In this connection, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would state the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to regulate the activities of private agencies in order to protect migrant workers from any abuse and mistreatment. Please also specify the penalties that are applied in case of infringement.

2. Article 6. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of its policy on equal treatment for national workers and migrant workers in respect of the subjects listed in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee also would appreciate if the Government would report on the outcome of tripartite discussions at the national level on the policy of migrant workers.

3. Recalling that under paragraph 1 of this Article, every State which has ratified the Convention undertakes to apply, without discrimination in respect of nationality, race, religion or sex, treatment no less favourable than that which it applies to its own nationals in respect of the matters enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of this Article, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that women migrant workers are treated on a par with their male counterparts, foreign or otherwise, in respect of working and living conditions, social security, work related taxes, and access to the justice system - in view of the growing feminization of migration for employment (see paragraphs 20-23 and 658 of the General Survey of 1999 on migrant workers).

4. Article 6(1)(a). The Committee notes that a collective agreement was drawn up in the building sector between the contractors and the New General Federation of Labour (Histadrut) carrying a special appendix defining the work conditions of foreign workers in the building sector. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the enforcement of such agreements.

5. Article 6(1)(b). The Committee requests the Government to supply further information regarding the level of medical coverage granted to migrant workers, as the latter appear to be covered by specific medical insurance schemes.

6. Article 8. Since this was one of the provisions cited most often by governments, at the time of the above General Survey (paragraphs 600-608), as being difficult to apply, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on how the right of migrant workers who have been admitted on a permanent basis to reside in the country is maintained in practice in the event of incapacity to work.

7. The Committee notes the statistical data provided by the Government concerning foreign workers employed in the country. It asks the Government to continue to provide such information and to communicate the results of the relevant activities of the labour inspection service, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee also asks the Government to state whether courts of law or other tribunals have handed down decisions involving questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention. If so, please supply the text of these decisions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the detailed information supplied in the Government's report. It asks the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the number of foreign workers lawfully employed in the country has increased from 5-6,000 at the beginning of the decade to 45-50,000 at the end of 1994. It asks the Government to state where these foreign workers come from and to indicate whether any bilateral agreements have been concluded with their countries of origin.

Article 2. The Committee notes the Government's statement that it is the employer's responsibility to provide migrant workers with information. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether there is also an adequate and free public service to assist migrants for employment, and in particular to provide them with accurate information, in accordance with these provisions of the Convention.

Article 4, in conjunction with Article 5. The Committee notes from the Government's report that it is the responsibility of the employer to take proper care of the workers during their travel and to provide medical insurance for them. It recalls that these provisions of the Convention require every State party to take appropriate measures to facilitate the departure, journey and reception of migrant workers and members of their family authorized to accompany or join them, and to ensure adequate medical services for this purpose. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated in this respect.

Point V of the report form. The Committee notes the statistical data provided by the Government concerning foreign workers employed in the country, and the results of the activities of the labour inspection services. It asks the Government to continue to provide such information, in accordance with the present provisions of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes that since 1957 no detailed report with complete up-to-date information, covering all fields of the Convention, has been received. The Government has mostly referred to former reports. As the Committee presumes that since the last detailed report, important changes have occurred in the relevant legislation and in practice, it would be grateful if the Government would provide a complete report, in accordance with the report form, approved by the Governing Body of the ILO.