The workers who have worked at the university for many years with no stain on their record were dismissed after a terror attack on the university campus purely because of their national origins and past offences that appeared in their criminal record
As a result of the lawsuit that was submitted by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in the name of two Arab residents of East Jerusalem who were illegally dismissed from their positions at the Hebrew University, a compromise was reached by which the two individuals were financially compensated both by the university and the employment agency through which they were employed. The workers were dismissed after the terror attack that took place in the cafeteria on the university campus in 2002, purely because of their national origins and minor past offenses that have exceeded their legal limitation period, but still appeared on their criminal record. This action was taken despite the fact that they had worked for the university for many years and had a flawless work record. The lawsuit, which was filed in the District Labor Court in Jerusalem in 2003 by ACRI Attorney Banna Shougri-Badarne, demanded that the Hebrew University and the employment contracting agency compensate the workers for their dismissal, which violated their rights to dignity and equality. The petition further demanded that the workers be re-employed or that they be paid the balance of the redundancy pay and social benefits to which they were entitled.
Last year, as a result of a mediation process, the university officials agreed to pay each worker the sum of 10,800 NIS and to provide them with a letter of recommendation. As a result of the contracting company’‘s refusal to reach a compromise the court case continued against the company. After an evidentiary hearing was held on the case, a compromise solution was reached whereby the two workers received sums of 3,000 NIS and 5,000 NIS. This agreement was authorized last week by the District Labor Court and given the status of a court ruling.
The petitioners worked as sanitation workers, and were employed through a company called “Contracted Services Ltd” for a period of 14-18 years respectively, and as previously mentioned the two had a flawless work record. At the end of August 2002, after a terror attack in the campus’‘s cafeteria in Mount Scopus, the university demanded that all the Arab workers employed by them through an employment agency, present a copy of their criminal record to the university’‘s security department as a condition of their continued employment. This was not a requirement for Jewish workers.
On the morning of 1.9.02, after the workers had provided copies of their criminal records, their entry to the campus was blocked in full view of their fellow workers whose entry was permitted, border patrol policemen, and others. The workers were thus humiliated and suffered a blatant violation of their right to dignity. Despite all their appeals and pleas to the security personnel that they either be allowed to enter the campus or provided with a suitable explanation as to why not, the workers were provided with neither. After a humiliating two-hour wait they were informed that the security division prohibits the continued employment of any sub-contracted employees who is a non-Jew, whose criminal record shows any “past security offense”. The contracting company was then asked to replace them. Moreover, in the case of these two workers the offenses were relatively light and were committed many years ago, (15 and 19 respectively), and since then the workers have committed no subsequent security offense. The reasons behind the denied entry, and their association with the terrorist action carried out, humiliated the petitioners, severely undermined their image in the eyes of their co-workers, and violated their sense of dignity.
The dismissal of the two, who were known by the university as loyal and devoted workers, had an extremely damaging impact on them and their families. The dismissals, states Attorney Shougri-Badarne in the text of the petition, were carried out with no consideration of the details of the aforementioned offenses, the date they were committed, their level of severity, and with no attempt to the question whether or not they represented a security threat at the time of their dismissal.
last updated : 28/05/06
