The Beersheva Regional Labor Court convicted a contracting company, its active manager, and a subcontractor after determining that they employed a 17-year-and-five-month-old teenager in construction work prohibited under the Youth Labor Law, without the required medical examination and approval. In the ruling, the president of the court, Judge Zvi Frenkel, stated that the Youth Labor Law is intended to protect teenagers from exploitation, and therefore the responsibility imposed on employers should be interpreted broadly, including when employment is carried out through subcontractors.
According to the verdict, issued on June 23, the teenager was employed in July 2024 at a construction site in Ashdod. He initially worked cleaning the site, but was later asked to go up to the upper floors and operate a jackhammer and a circular saw—equipment classified as part of construction work in which the employment of minors is prohibited. During his testimony, the teenager said that he had made clear to the employers that he did not know how to operate the tools, but was nevertheless instructed to carry out the work. While operating the machinery he sustained an injury to his hand.
Labor Ministry inspectors who arrived at the site for an inspection testified that they found the teenager working with a jackhammer, and photographs submitted to the court supported their testimony. The court determined that the teenager’s testimony was consistent, authentic, and credible, even though he provided additional details during the proceedings that were not included in his initial statement, including the injury he sustained while working. The judge accepted his explanation that he had not initially understood the significance of the legal proceedings.
The contracting company and its manager argued that no employment relationship existed between them and the teenager, and that various subcontractors operated at the site. The court clarified that the Youth Labor Law does not require a formal employment relationship in order to consider a particular party an employer. It determined that the company, which was the main contractor responsible for the site, had failed to demonstrate that another party was the teenager’s actual employer, and had failed to prove that it had taken all necessary measures to prevent the employment of minors at the site.
The court further determined that the company manager had failed to meet the supervisory duty imposed on him, despite his claim that he had included a prohibition on employing minors in agreements with subcontractors. The agreements submitted to the court did not contain such a provision, and he himself admitted that he had not checked the ages of workers entering the site.
The subcontractor was also convicted after the teenager identified him as the person who instructed him on which tasks to perform, paid his wages, and accompanied him after he was injured. The court rejected his claim that another person had been the teenager’s employer. The judge gave little weight to a partial transcript of a conversation submitted in his defense, after it was presented without the original recording and without a full translation of the sections conducted in Arabic.
In the ruling, the judge also addressed the broader question of the scope of responsibility for employing teenagers at construction sites. According to him, a narrow interpretation of the law, under which responsibility applies only to the direct employer, could allow parties to evade accountability through chains of subcontractors.
“The Youth Labor Law is intended to regulate the employment of teenagers, who are taking their first steps in the labor market, provide them with a normative safety net, and protect them from work that endangers their physical and mental health, as well as from possible exploitation by employers,” the judge wrote. “The legislature recognized that boys and girls, by their very nature, lack the tools, experience, and bargaining power required to protect themselves, and therefore deemed it appropriate to create enhanced protective mechanisms for them.”
“Criminal liability should also be imposed on the business within whose geographical and physical premises the work is actually carried out. This responsibility shall remain in place even if another party or individual serves as the teenager’s direct employer, regardless of whether formal employment relations, outsourcing arrangements, or any other contractual relationship exist between that party and the business owner. In this way, the legislature’s intent can be fulfilled and a situation prevented in which business owners ‘turn a blind eye’ to the employment of teenagers in violation of the law within their premises, while hiding behind legal structures or subcontractors.”
However, the judge qualified this ruling, determining that where a business owner can prove that they acted actively and reasonably to prevent the employment of teenagers, or that they did not have control over the premises, they may rebut the legal presumption.
The court convicted the company and the subcontractor of two offenses: employing a teenager in prohibited construction work and employing a teenager without a medical examination and medical approval. The company manager was convicted of breaching his supervisory duty to prevent both offenses. The sentencing hearing will be held separately.
In 2018, the Youth Labor Law was amended to establish a blanket prohibition on employing teenagers at construction sites, and even on their entering such sites. This was due to the construction sector being the most dangerous industry in the Israeli economy, accounting each year for more than half of all fatalities from construction accidents and serious workplace accidents.
The legislative amendment was promoted by social organizations, including the Coalition for the Prevention of Construction and Industrial Accidents, Kav LaOved, Ha’Noar Ha’Oved V’Ha’Lomed (The Working and Learning Youth Movement), and the Histadrut, after several teenagers were killed at construction sites—mainly during school vacations. The only exceptions established to the prohibition on teenagers entering construction sites for work are limited frameworks of vocational training and apprenticeships, which are subject to special conditions.