By From the Staff of Yedid
Last week YEDID convened a meeting of YEDID’s national, legal and center staff, as well as Attorney Tomer Moskowitz, judicial advisor of the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Employment and Attorney Galit Yaacobov, judicial advisor for the government’s pilot Welfare-to-Work program to discuss the failures and inherent problematics of the program’s appeal process.
At the beginning of the discussion, Gilad Barnea, Director of YEDID’s legal department, raised the issue of the extremely dubious legality of the Welfare-to-Work program, which transfers decisions about welfare payments from the purview of the National Insurance Institute to a private for-profit company. Attorney Barnea added that this principle must be taken into consideration during deliberations regarding possible extension of the pilot program for a longer period of time or expansion to additional cities.
The YEDID representatives brought up a number of issues for consideration by the program’s judicial advisors. The following is a summary of the meeting, as recorded by YEDID attorney Vardit Madar-Damari:
The work of the Welfare-to-Work appeals committee in Jerusalem: YEDID’s experience shows that the committee — which enjoys quasi-judicial authority — operates in ways unfitting its role to the detriment of the legal rights of the appellants. For example, appellants are not given the opportunity to request further information from the Welfare-to-Work employment center staff to clarify subjects of contention. In addition, the committee did not allow the appellants or their representatives to complete their claims, especially their legal claims.
Refusal to grant extensions for appeals applications
A. YEDID representatives noted that the restriction of 10 days for the purpose of submission of appeal of a decision is unreasonable, especially when one considers the consequences for the injured party (annulment of welfare payments). In addition, the demand for a “special reason” for the purpose of extension of the date for submission of an appeal often makes it impossible for appellants to submit appeals. Even in cases where there are justified reasons for a delay in submission, the committee does not consider them to be “special reasons” for the purpose of late submission of an appeal.
B. Furthermore, according to YEDID’s understanding of the law, the committee has the authority to accept late submission of an appeal without a “special reason.” This is in accord with paragraph 11 of the guidelines for the fiscal year 2004 (amendment “Placing welfare recipients into jobs, one-time measure, procedures of the appeals committee, 2005).
C. An additional problem causing difficulty to a participant who submits a late appeal is the narrow, unyielding understanding of procedures utilized by the appeal committee regarding extension of submission, even when there are “special reasons” for late submission.
Medical Decisions by the Program or Appeals Committee Doctor
A. Determinations regarding medical constraints connected to the program are not given by appropriate specialists, that is, doctors who specialize in industrial medicine.
The Employment Center almost automatically sends all sick notices given by participants to their staff doctor, in spite of the fact that these notices do not meet all the criteria in the guidelines for the fiscal year 2004 (amendment “Placing welfare recipients into jobs, one-time measure, procedures of the appeals committee, 2005).
B. The medical decisions reached do not meet the law’s criteria and are unreasonable. Decisions were made that canceled sick-day permits for reasons such as, “used too many sick days,” “the illness does not require a sick day,” etc.
Late arrival of translators in appeals committee deliberations
The sorry experience of YEDID shows that in the appeals committee deliberations in the Ashkelon area many times translators came late to sessions. Also, it was necessary to clearly instruct the translators to translate the deliberations exactly and not to leave out details which they deemed irrelevant.
The following is the reply of the Welfare-to-Work judicial advisors in a document sent to YEDID:
1. The date for appeal submission – According to the law, an appellant must submit his appeal within 10 calendar days starting from the day he is informed of the decision [which he intends to appeal]. An appeal submitted beyond this date will be considered only if it meets stated criteria. It is claimed that 10 days are insufficient, especially in light of the fact that participants do not always understand what needs to be done, and the fact that they must secure certain documents. It is further claimed that under such circumstances late appeals should be considered even if they do not meet current criteria.
Office Answer: Changing this policy would necessitate an amendment to the legislation governing the program. This will be considered in the context of discussions regarding future operation of the program. However, note that the appeals committee presently has only 5 days in which to grant its decision, and if it does not decide within 21 days, participant’s welfare payments are reinstituted.
2. During deliberations, all parties involved were not given an opportunity to challenge the question.
Office Reply: It will be explained to the committee that its opposition and justification for its opposition must be recorded in the hearing transcript and the committee will decide whether or not to accept its opposition. The decision of the committee will also be recorded in the transcript.
3. The appellants were not given the opportunity to record anything in the transcript.
Office Reply: It will be explained to the committee that this must be recorded in the form of, “the appellant wishes to record the following in the hearing transcript. . . .”
4. The appellant was given no opportunity to direct questions to representatives of the other side and for the other side to question the appellant.
Office Reply: It will be explained to the committee that it must allow for such questioning, within the existing timeframes, and questions form one side to the other should not be through the committee members.
5. The appellant was given no opportunity to fill in missing details of the appeal; the committee immediately starts asking both sides questions.
Office Reply: It will be explained to the committee that the appellant may add details of his claim and the other side may also add details if it so desires.
6. There was no opportunity to bring up legal claims.
Office Reply: It will be explained to the committee that legal claims may be brought up.
7. Sometimes the translators come late and they do not always provide full translations of hearing proceedings.
Office Reply: It will be explained to the committee that a translator must be present whenever needed by an appellant. It must ensure that translators arrive in time to session and they must be instructed that they are to precisely translate the appellant’s words without shortening or explaining them.
It should be emphasized that these instructions to the committee are being issued without having investigated if the claims against the Welfare-to-Work appeals committee are true or not
