Assis Tamang was a rafting instructor in his homeland Nepal when he met Liat Yakir, an Israeli tourist. They fell in love, and three and a half years ago, Tamang came to Israel to be with her. The couple has one child, and Liat is pregnant with a second.

Tamang began working as a security guard, first at security firm Sherutei Shomrim, and then, after it went bankrupt last year, for rival Hashmira. He served as a lookout at a railway crossing in Rehovot, and once prevented an accident, for which Hashmira awarded him a letter of appreciation. Due to a staff shortage, he sometimes worked 12 hours a day. He liked his job, was considered an excellent employee, received three raises in five months, and hoped for a promotion.

	Advertisement

But on December 3, 2006, eight and a half months after starting at Hashmira, he was fired without warning. Shocked, he called his boss, Gabi Lazarovitch, who explained: After nine months on the job, a fired worker must be paid severance pay. Therefore, the company fires all its workers shortly before the nine months are up and rehires them as new workers three months later. Lazarovitch stressed that Tamang had been a "fantastic" worker, but said he had no choice: This was company policy.

In response to Tamang's question, he added that the company had hired 70 new workers to replace the 60 fired with Tamang.

Tamang plans to file suit against Hashmira in the local labor court today. But he is far from the only victim of the policy described by Lazarovitch, which is widespread in the security, cleaning and other contract-labor industries. The social benefits that by law come with nine months of continuous employment raise employers' costs by 20 to 30 percent, therefore many companies make sure to dismiss their workers every nine months.

Nevertheless, the companies deny this - in part because the practice violates their collective agreement with the Histadrut labor federation.

Hashmira reiterated this denial when asked for comment on Tamang's case - though in fact, its policy does seem to have changed since January, after the Justice Ministry threatened to revoke its license if it continued firing workers after nine months solely to avoid paying them benefits. The company insisted that it fires workers strictly "on a professional basis" and that Tamang's dismissal had been a "regrettable mistake." Upon discovering the mistake, it added, it offered to rehire him, but he refused.

Tamang's attorney, Itai Svirsky of Tel Aviv University's legal clinic, confirmed that when he complained to the company on Tamang's behalf in January, it offered to rehire him, but Tamang had already found another job because his short stint at Hashmira did not even entitle him to unemployment compensation.

Moreover, Svirsky said, the company failed to pay Tamang what he is due - including pension allocations, overtime pay and vacation pay - and Tamang would rather not work for such a company.

He is therefore suing Hashmira for NIS 90,000 on account of both the illegal dismissal and the missing payments.