Case 252/07 which was brought before the National labor court and ruled upon on Dec 11, 2007
Facts:
=======
The petitioner worked as an law intern for a law firm for 1 year, from 01/09/1997 – 31/08/1998 and signed a waiver/agreement whereby he agreed to work without pay or benefits for his intern work.
The prosecution sued in labor court for pay and benefits for his work as an intern. The local labor court ruled partially in favor of the intern and ordered the law office to pay the intern, which in turn led to this appeal.
The National Labor court ruled:
===============================
Article 12 of the minimum wage law, 1987, which is a Basic law which cannot be waived or made to be Dependant on other factors. The minimum wage law was meant to prevent employers from taking advantage of groups of workers as well as protect employees from themselves and prevent instances where an employee agrees to work for free because he is in need of a professional mentor.
The court determined that even if an intern agrees to work without pay, despite this “agreement” the employer must pay the intern at least minimum wages. This despite the impression that the employer may have that the employee would be willing to work without pay. Even if the employee didn’t act wholeheartedly, and even if he sued the employer after leaving his position, this cannot demeanor his rights by law.
The court further determined that in a work relationship between a mentor and an intern, the mentor will always have the upper hand. From the outset this is not an equal relationship. The intern is like a student who approaches his master, as the employer oversees his student’s professional manner, guides him and needs to authorize the internship, thereby opening doors to his profession future by allowing him access to the Israeli bar association.
As such, even if the intern agrees to work without pay or for partial pay, this is interpreted as exploitation of the distress of the weak by the employer and not as an insincere action by the employee.
Furthermore, and on the other hand it would be insincere action on the part of the employer to imply or suggest that an employee work for free or at a reduced rate and even if he were presented with such a suggestion from the employee, he should turn it down completely.
It is a given that the wording of the law will not accept a “waiver” of basic employee rights, as minimum wage, even if implied, suggested or agreed upon. It has no consequence whether it is an oral or written agreement or even an understanding or implication because the employee didn’t complain about not receiving pay or receiving less than minimum wages.
It also does not matter whether this was done before, during or after employment.
The court rejected the appeal and charged the employer with the court fees as well.
