(1) police officers in the Israel Police, as well as anyone who is a member of the Israel Prison Service;
(2) civil servants whose job requires them to be available for work even outside of regular working hours;
(3) seafarers and fishermen;
(4) air crew members;
(5) Employees in management positions or in positions that require a special degree of personal trust;
(6) Employees whose working conditions and circumstances do not allow the employer any supervision of their working and rest hours."
- The groups argue that in the circumstances of the case, Amos and Zubas should be considered as meeting the end of subsection (5), which deals with employees "in positions that require a special degree of personal trust." It was argued that in view of the lifestyles to which the players are committed, the fact that they are personally selected for the team due to one adaptation or another, they should be seen as someone whose role requires a special degree of personal trust.
- First, it should be noted that according to the Court's well-rooted ruling, the exceptions to the law will be interpreted narrowly "so that fewer workers will be excluded from the application of the law and more workers will benefit from the protections that the law provides."[5] With regard to a collective dispute (5), it was held that every position of an employee requires a degree of personal trust, and that the exception relates to a position that requires a special degree of personal trust[6]. The test for the existence of a special degree of personal trust is not subjective, but objective[7]. The main characteristics that characterize a position that requires a special degree of personal trust were summarized in the Agron case [8] as follows: seniority or partnership in special or sensitive information or special responsibility that accompanies a high salary that corresponds to the special personal trust and the long and sometimes unusual hours required of the employee; independence in making important decisions, the ability to initiate actions, and the authority to give instructions to other employees.
- The question of whether there is justification for excluding footballers from the application of the law, even in the top professional leagues, has one side and the other. On the one hand, it is doubtful whether such a footballer meets the alternative of a special degree of personal trust (or another alternative in section 30 above). However, for the most part, the wages of these people can and will be considered high wages. However, this salary is the product of market forces of his personal skills and not of the position. In addition, ostensibly and on the face of it, he is not a partner in sensitive or special information, he is not required to be independent in making important decisions, he does not have the ability to initiate actions or the authority to give instructions to other employees, etc., which are characteristics of a special degree of personal trust.
- On the other hand, this is a unique industry that is subject to significant regulation – not only to local regulation (the Association) that is exercised by virtue of the Sports Law, which will be retried – 1988, but also to international regulation (European and global) that also extends to life outside of work. All of these regulated strict rules that were intended, among other things, to protect the health and well-being of the player. According to the claim, observing these rules requires a special degree of personal trust. Moreover, rules for weekly and seasonal rest were also regulated, which meet the purposes of the Hours of Work and Rest Law. This is because the scope of employment of soccer players is partial to the accepted scope in the economy or in the world for the employment of other workers – both in terms of the working day and in terms of the number of days worked per week, as well as in terms of rest days during the year.
- It should be noted that in one unique and special case, the possibility of excluding employees from the application of the law was recognized, even though they do not fall within the scope of any of the types of employees listed in section 30 of the law. In another hearing, the High Court for Gluten Justice discussed the question of the applicability of the law to long-term care caregivers (mainly foreign nationals) who live in the nursing patient's home. The National Court ruled in the same case that the aforementioned employees fall within the scope of the types of employees that were excluded from the law (collective dispute (5) and (6) of the law).[9] The nursing worker's petition was rejected, including after the additional hearing. The rejection of the petition was made not because those nursing caregivers fall within the scope of any of the types of workers listed in section 30 of the Law, but mainly because of the incompatibility of the provisions of the Law with regard to the employment of this type of workers, and "especially since efforts are being made to regulate the issue in legislation, and this is appropriate." This was explained by President Grunis, with whom the majority of the panel agreed:
"... The Supreme Court did not fully adopt the National Labor Court's reasoning. The judgment [of the High Court of Justice – A.A.] It was based on the argument that the unique employment pattern in the field of nursing is inconsistent from the outset with the purpose of the Hours of Work and Rest Law – to ensure a proper balance between the hours that the employee devotes to his work and his leisure hours. It was further ruled that, as is evident from these statements, the format of this employment is also inconsistent with the main provisions of the Law, the purpose of which is to regulate the length and nature of the work day and the work week. Such are, for example, the provisions set forth in sections 3-5 of the Law, which limit the number of hours during a day and week of work in which the employer may employ the employee. The obligation to pay the increased payment for overtime employment is a provision that appends and applies to these provisions. In fact, it is a tool designed to help enforce the main prohibition set forth in the law, which is the prohibition on working long hours."