Amman, October 6th, 2024
The Phenix Center for Economic and Informatics Studies called for the need to reconsider the recent proposed amendments to the Jordanian Labor Law, as they have serious implications for decent work standards.
The Phenix Center stressed that decent work standards in Jordan are in continuous decline in many sectors and economic activities and that the Jordanian labor market is still suffering from many issues and imbalances in its various components due to the government policies that have been implemented during the past years, which adopted a policy of weakening labor conditions under the pretext of pushing the economic process and stimulating investment.
The Phenix Center also called for the need to raise the minimum wage of 260 dinars retroactively in accordance with the increases in inflation rates since the last increase in the minimum wage in 2021, in order to enable citizens to absorb the effects of these increases and ease the burdens on them.
This came in a position paper issued by the Phenix Center on the occasion of the International Day for Decent Work, which falls on October 7 of each year.
The paper indicated that although the draft amendments to the Labor Law contain some positive amendments, most of the proposed amendments are considered negative and will constitute a further regression in decent work standards.
The paper explained that the amendments include enshrining the powers of the Minister of Labor to deport any non-Jordanian worker working without a work permit in accordance with the legislation in force, without resorting to the judicial authority.
The paper emphasized that the decision to deport must be issued by a judicial body and not by the minister directly as an executive authority, because the judiciary has the authority to judge and issue a decision and is able to take a decision that holds the perpetrators responsible for the lack of a work permit, whether the worker or the employer, and ensures that the worker is not subjected to injustice.
The paper explained that many migrant workers (migrants) do not renew their permits due to their employers who do not renew them in order to avoid paying the resulting fees, which puts the worker alone at risk of deportation without obtaining a fair trial in which the judicial authorities investigate whether or not he committed the violation, which requires the need to take fair procedures before deciding whether or not to deport him.
The paper pointed out that the proposed amendments will also tend to consolidate the powers of the executive authority at the expense of the judicial authority in cases of unfair dismissal of workers, as Article 25 of the law, which sets a time limit for the worker to file a lawsuit with the competent court upon termination of his services, which is set at 60 days from the termination of his services to object to the termination of his services, and then the competent court will decide whether or not this is an unfair dismissal, and replace it with a regulation issued for this purpose that defines the cases in which the dismissal is considered arbitrary and also defines their entitlements and rights.
The paper emphasized that abolishing the authority of the judiciary in resolving these cases, and replacing it with the executive authority to determine cases of arbitrary dismissal, would upset the balance between the interests of the two parties to the relationship in the labor market, and is a clear infringement on the powers of the judiciary, as placing cases of arbitrary dismissal in the hands of the executive authority may subject the entire process to its desires and moods, which will lead to an expansion in the arbitrary dismissal of workers from their jobs, thus worsening unemployment rates, which is contrary to the directions of the Jordanian state towards ensuring the reduction of unemployment rates.
Amendments will also be made to the article that defines the cases of dismissing a worker without notice, as the period of absence from work without a legitimate reason will be reduced to ten consecutive or intermittent days within one year, knowing that the current law stipulates a period of 20 intermittent days within one year or 10 consecutive days, which will expand the dismissal of workers, as there are workers who may have special circumstances that sometimes force them to be absent from work without a legitimate reason.
The paper indicated that the proposed amendments would allow an employer whose economic or technical circumstances require reducing the size of the business, replacing one production system with another, or completely stopping work to terminate the employment contracts of no more than 15 percent of the number of his workers once a year without referring to the Ministry of Labor, as the original law required the employer to inform the ministry in writing with reasons before taking any action in this regard.
The paper warned that this may open the door to expanding the termination of employment contracts for workers in the private sector, which will increase the already high unemployment rate, which reached 21.4 percent during the second quarter of 2024, because these workers will be of an age that allows them to work and produce for a longer period, which increases competition for available jobs in light of the lack of new job opportunities.
The proposed amendments also included imposing restrictions on male and female workers in the private sector regarding sick leave in Article (65) of the law, so that the doctor will be determined by the establishment instead of being only approved by the establishment as in the current law.
The paper argues that giving employers the authority to determine accredited doctors will impose restrictions on male and female workers and may sometimes prevent them from enjoying sick leave because the medical authorities that will be determined by the enterprises may be far from the workers' places of residence and may be in a governorate other than the governorate in which the worker lives, and therefore it will be difficult for workers to go to them instead of going to medical authorities approved by the enterprises that may be close to their places of residence.
The proposed amendments will also affect paragraph (c) of Article (108), as the court's powers to intervene in the event that a representative of a labor union is dismissed from work for practicing trade union activity will be canceled, and the paragraph will be limited to the worker's right to claim any damage or harm caused to him as a result of any action taken against him.
The paper warns that the elimination of the judiciary's authority to resolve dismissal cases will expand the dismissal of workers representing trade unions and reduce the (already weak) role of trade unions in defending the rights and interests of male and female workers. The Labor Observatory emphasizes that the judiciary has the authority to judge and issue decisions in such cases and is able to make a decision that holds the perpetrator accountable and ensures that the worker is not subjected to injustice.
As for the positive amendments, the paper explained that they consist of increasing the period of maternity leave from 70 days to 90 days as in the public sector, which eliminates the discrimination that exists between workers in the public and private sectors, and prohibiting the dismissal of a pregnant woman even if she is in the first month, not as in the current law, which prohibits her dismissal if she is in the sixth month, in addition to granting a worker in the private sector a paid leave of three days in the event of the death of a first-degree relative.
The paper called for stopping making partial and random amendments to the law and redeveloping the labor law in a comprehensive manner so that it provides the necessary social protections that are recognized and treated as minimum rights, protections, and obligations for workers and employers in a way that contributes to achieving legislative stability in the field of labor relations and ensures its sustainability.
With regard to the minimum wage, the paper explained that the government has not raised it for nearly four years in line with inflation rates, in violation of paragraph (b) of Article 52 of the Labor Law, which stipulates that cost-of-living indicators issued by the competent official authorities should be taken into account when determining the minimum wage by the Tripartite Committee for Labor Affairs.