...
Over the years, with the development of the various forms of employment, case law has been required to change the test to a broader and more flexible one, one that adapts itself to the various employment patterns. The case law tried to develop a test that could provide a more appropriate and accurate legal response, than the integration test alone, for those various cases that came before the labor courts. As a result, the case law changed the determining test to the "mixed test", which includes at its center the integration test and other sub-tests (see High Court of Justice 5168/93 Shmuel Mor v. National Labor Court, 50(4) 628 (1996) (hereinafter - the Mor case)). Thus the Tribunal noted in the hearing of the National Labor Court 3-254/Nev Fritz Haim v. Mifal HaPais, 26(1) 372 (1993): "The intention is not to abandon the accepted tests, but only to a change of perspective. In difficult cases, the tests set out in case law are transformed from tests of absolute weight into relative tests, while the answer to the question of the existence of an employee-employer relationship is learned by the court from the cumulative weight of all the tests."
((Labor Appeal 12372-04-18, Labor Appeal 15868-04-18 Gabriel Kuta - Ra'anana Municipality, Labor Appeal 7338-10-17 Dan Rabin - State of Israel, Labor Appeal 34665-10-17 Ze'ev Levy - Gedera Seeds Ltd., given on April 7, 2021. Section 9).
The Integration Test
The positive aspect -
- The defendant's properties were yielding and it was necessary to handle their rent, search for tenants, sign leases, collect rent, and make repairs to the apartments when necessary. It is clear that the plaintiff's work was essential, since someone else should have done it instead of her mother. The plaintiff performed all the handling of the assets.
- The plaintiff was part of her mother's organizational system in order to generate profits for her mother.
The negative aspect -
- According to the court's decision of May 29, 2023, the plaintiff should have disclosed the income tax reports for the past 7 years, since the income tax reports are relevant to the process of examining the nature of the relationship between the parties. The plaintiff did not disclose her tax return to the transfer of the venue. A party who refrains from bringing evidence in his possession can be concluded that if the evidence had been brought, it would have been able to act against him (Civil Appeal 548/78 Noa Sharon et al. Yosef Levy, IsrSC 35(1), 736; Civil Appeal 465/88 Bank for Finance and Trade in Tax Appeal v. Salima Matityahu et al. IsrSC 45(4), 651; Civil Appeal 55/89 Koppel (Self-Driving) in Tax Appeal v. Telcar Company in Tax Appeal IsrSC 44(4), 595). From the plaintiff's refusal to provide this evidence, we conclude that the content of the reports was detrimental to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff claims that she did not run an independent business, but as stated, she chose not to present the annual reports. This means that she had something to hide in her lawsuit to the court.
The Supervision and Control Test
- The plaintiff assisted her mother in managing the assets and received compensation for this assistance.
- The plaintiff did not know how many hours she devoted to this "work":
Witness Mrs. A. Milstein: I was then, so 2021 is like all the years, my occupation and availability is 24/7, it doesn't matter if it's a holiday and it doesn't matter if it's a holiday and it doesn't matter if it's Shabbat and it doesn't matter if it's 12:00 at night, that someone in the apartment, speaking of statute of limitations, an explosion in the middle of the night, doesn't wait for work hours.