The story began when a Bangladeshi worker in a factory in Al-Hassan Industrial City requested leave to care for his sick daughter. The management rejected his request, leading three of his colleagues to support him, which escalated into a conflict with the supervisor. The supervisor filed an assault complaint against the three workers at the police station, resulting in their detention. Subsequently, the factory management terminated their employment, sparking a strike among the remaining workers, who demanded the reinstatement of their colleagues and leave for the worker to care for his daughter.
The Strike
The strike failed to achieve its objectives. The company responded by denying the workers food and involving labor inspectors, who issued violations against the strikers and referred them to court. Upon returning to work, the workers were informed that they faced charges for an “illegal strike.” With around 200 workers involved, the cases were divided into ten lawsuits at the Ramtha Magistrate Court with different hearing dates, creating confusion among the workers. A legal support center accompanied the workers to court for several cases, offering guidance alongside a representative from the Textile Workers Union, who instructed the workers on how to object to the charges.
In Court
The complaints were distributed among various judges, resulting in differing rulings depending on the judicial panel:
Case One:
The court referred to Article 138(a) of the Jordanian Labor Law, which states:
“No lawsuit regarding any violation of this law shall be heard unless filed within one month from the date of the violation.”
The charges against the workers were filed on December 7, 2011, whereas the alleged violation occurred on September 4, 2011. Since the charges were filed beyond the legally permitted timeframe, the court ruled to dismiss the public right claim due to the statute of limitations. This decision was upheld after appeal.
Case Two:
The court, based on Articles 135(a) and 136(a) of the Labor Law, found the workers guilty of the charges and imposed a fine of 50 JOD for the first day of the strike, plus an additional 5 JOD for each of the 14 subsequent strike days, totaling 115 JOD per worker, along with court fees. After an appeal, the court upheld this ruling.
Case Three:
The court, referencing Articles 135(a) and 136(a) of the Labor Law, found the workers guilty and fined each 100 JOD, plus 50 JOD for the first day of the strike and 5 JOD for each subsequent day. Additionally, the workers were denied wages for the strike days. After objections, the court reaffirmed its decision, maintaining the fines and wage denial.
Case Four:
The workers’ lawyer argued that the charges were filed outside the one-month limit set by Article 138(a) of the Labor Law. The court confirmed that the charges, filed on December 7, 2011, for an alleged violation on September 4, 2011, were beyond the legal timeframe. Consequently, the court dismissed the public right claim due to the statute of limitations. Upon appeal, the court upheld the decision to dismiss the charges.
Observations on the Cases
Multiple Cases for a Single Act
Assuming the existence of an illegal strike violation, the charges should have been directed at the participants collectively through a single report (or memorandum) by labor inspectors, and referred as one case. However, the division of cases led to varying rulings depending on the judicial panel. Notably, two decisions found violations of the strike, yet one imposed a fine of 115 JOD, while the other imposed a fine of 100 JOD for the same act.
Language and Translation Issues
With over 20 workers, none of whom spoke Arabic, appearing before the court to provide their statements was impractical, especially since the court did not provide a translator. Workers were required to arrange their own translators, contrary to both law and international agreements ratified by Jordan. The court is obligated to provide translation services rather than place this burden on the defendants. Furthermore, the limited space in courtrooms caused confusion among defendants and disrupted proceedings.
Improper Notification Procedures
Workers were not properly notified of the cases. Notifications were reportedly “affixed” in visible locations per procedural rules, yet in practice, these notifications were handed over to the factory administration or the Textile Workers Union as a stack of papers. Even if the notifier physically affixed them, the notifications were written entirely in Arabic, making it impossible for workers to understand the cases or prepare their defense.
Financial Burden of Divided Cases
Dividing a single act into multiple cases increased financial burdens on workers wishing to hire a lawyer. Workers had to pay a fee of 32 JOD for each case as attorney registration fees, while they would only pay this fee once if the cases were combined. Currently, the attorney registration fee stands at 52 JOD. Some rulings also included depriving workers of wages during strike days, which is beyond the court’s jurisdiction to impose. Wages are a right guaranteed to workers by law. For instance, one decision stated, "...each worker is deprived of their wages for the days they participated in the strike," a penalty not within the jurisdiction of criminal courts.
Lack of Awareness Among Workers
Workers often lack knowledge about the proper legal procedures for organizing a strike, and some labor inspectors fail to fulfill their duties adequately. If inspectors had acted correctly, they could have resolved workers’ demands by holding the factory or supervisors accountable. Workers’ ignorance of their rights and inability to claim them leads to mounting frustrations, often culminating in strikes.
Fear of Legal Action
Workers are hesitant to pursue legal action due to prolonged litigation periods. Additionally, workers with expired residency permits are often referred to the administrative governor and deported, further discouraging them from seeking justice. The financial inability to hire lawyers compounds these challenges. Consequently, strikes often end with workers accepting partial rights as a concession to the status quo.
Legality of Strikes
Article 2 of the 1998 Regulations on the Conditions and Procedures for Strikes and Closures defines a strike as “a group of workers stopping work due to a labor dispute.” Article 4 imposes conditions for the legality of strikes:
A written notice must be submitted detailing the subject of the dispute and the intended strike date.
The notice must be signed by the workers or their representative union, clearly identifying the categories of workers involved.
The notice must be delivered to the employer or their representative. If delivery is not possible, the notice may be sent via registered mail, with notification considered complete seven days after dispatch. Consequently, the strike date must be adjusted to commence after this period.
A copy of the notice must also be sent to the relevant labor directorate by hand to ensure the strike’s validity.
Article 135 of the Labor Law stipulates that workers must provide at least 14 days’ notice to their employer before striking, with this period doubling for work related to public services.
Penalties for Violating Strike Conditions
Article 136 imposes penalties for violating strike conditions:
A fine of no less than 50 JOD for the first day of the strike.
A fine of 5 JOD for each subsequent day.
Workers are deprived of wages for the days they participate in the strike.
This criminalization of strikes without meeting the prescribed conditions imposes fines and denies wages. However, the law is ambiguous in its definition of strikes and does not consider whether workers are foreign and may lack the ability to read or write.