Workers' Compensation for Unpaid Leave During States of Emergency
- ACRI
- 16 hours ago
- 3 min read
Over the past 20 years, arrangements to compensate workers following military operations and states of emergency have been based on a system in which the State reimburses employers for the loss of their income, and employers pay employees the wages they lost due to absences caused by the emergency. In other words, employers receive compensation directly from the State, and they then transfer the payments to their workers.
The Forum for Workers’ Rights, which includes ACRI, approached the State Comptroller’s Committee ahead of a discussion on compensation for employees for war‑related damages. The organizations raised several key problems with the current compensation framework and proposed a series of measures aimed at ensuring that compensation following states of emergency provide better employee protections and serve as a stronger safety net.
Main issues with the current system:
Retroactivity means uncertainty: The current compensation framework is based on agreements and orders that are signed retroactively, resulting in significant uncertainty among employees regarding their entitlement to wages.
Dependence on employers: The payment of wages is contingent on the employer receiving reimbursement from the State and acting as a “conduit” for transferring the funds. This leaves employees with no control over when—and whether—they receive their wages.
The unpaid leave (furlough) model harms rights: The State encouraged the use of unpaid leave, but this undermines workers’ rights. Unemployment benefits do not cover the entire amount of missed wages; additionally, the furlough period is not counted toward seniority, and does not come with social benefits.
Exclusion of marginalized populations: Workers who are not eligible for unemployment benefits (such as workers above retirement age or asylum seekers) are left without an economic solution under the furlough model.
Difficulties in proving payment of wages: There are cases in which employers receive compensation from the State without being required to prove that wages were actually paid to employees. This may lead to double compensation for the employer, and none for the worker.
Significant harm to hourly workers: Hourly workers are particularly affected when they are not called in to work but are also not fired or furloughed. There are also disagreements over how to calculate their “regular wage” during a state of emergency.
Proposals for improvement:
Anchoring the right to wages in primary legislation: Adopting permanent legislation (such as an amendment to the Emergency Protection of Workers Law) that would guarantee workers a right to wages for absence due to states of emergency, without having to rely on retroactive agreements.
Creating an “employee track” for direct compensation: Establishing a system that would allow workers to submit compensation claims for unpaid workdays to the Property Tax Authority or the National Insurance Institute (Bituach Leumi) so that they are no longer dependent on employers.
Making compensation to employers conditional: Making employer compensation conditional on presenting proof that wages were actually paid, and that accrued vacation days have not been deducted.
Establishing a system for calculating wages for hourly workers and workers without pay stubs: One proposal is that hourly workers’ wages should be calculated based on the average of the three highest months out of the twelve months preceding the work stoppage. For workers without pay slips (such as domestic workers), payment would be based on National Insurance records or a declaration from an employer.
Improving routine data collection: Amending the National Insurance Law so that ongoing data on employment and the working hours of hourly workers is collected routinely, thereby enabling informed decision‑making and accurate compensation calculations during emergencies.
Flexibility in claiming unemployment benefits: Employees should be allowed to file claims even without a formal furlough letter from the employer, based on an affidavit or attendance records, if they were not called in to work.
The organizations’ appeal, February 8, 2026 (Heb)
The appeal is signed by: Adv. Diana Baron (Kav LaOved – Workers’ Hotline); Adv. Debbie Gild‑Hayo (Association for Civil Rights in Israel); Adv. Miri Gross (Labor Law Clinic, Tel Aviv University); Adv. Rasha Al‑Attaouna (Itach‑Maaki – Women Lawyers for Social Justice); Adv. Racheli Sungo (Women’s Lobby in Israel); Dr. Yael Proaktor (Adva Center)
