However, the chance to prove the claim is not enough, but the court must be authorized to hear the same ground.
- In the Zelig case, it was held that when a claim is submitted to the court by a police officer, the court is required to conduct a two-stage examination of it. In the first stage, it is necessary to examine whether the claim falls within the scope of the Labor Court's substantive jurisdiction under section 24 of the Labor Court Law, 5729-1969 (hereinafter, "the Law"). To the extent that the answer to this is yes, it is necessary to examine whether the matter was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by virtue of the provision of section 93A(a) of the Ordinance (see Labor Appeal (National) 4522-11-18 Michael Zelig v. State of Israel, of March 29, 2020).
- In the circumstances before us, there is no dispute that there was an employment relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, as stated in section 24(a)(1) of the Law. Therefore, it is possible to move on to the second exam.
- With regard to the second examination, section 93a(a) of the Ordinance states:
"An action that objects to the use of the powers given under this Ordinance with respect to the appointment of a senior police officer, the appointment of a police officer to the position, his transfer from one position to another or from one place to another, his promotion or demotion from rank, his suspension from his position, his dismissal from the corps, the extension of his service due to an emergency, his occupation of work outside his duties within the framework of the police, or his discharge from service - shall not be considered as a claim arising from an employee-employer relationship for the purpose of section 24 of the Labor Court Law. 5729-1969."
A decision regarding the subscription in section 93A above falls within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Affairs Court, by virtue of Item 37 (1) of the First Addendum to the Administrative Courts Law, 5760-2000.
- In the explanatory notes to section 93A of the Police Ordinance (Search Order / Entry Order 973, p. 108) it is stated that:
"The proposed laws are intended to determine that the status of a police officer or prison guard is not the same as that of another salaried employee for judicial purposes under the Labor Courts Law. The methods of employing a person as a police officer or prison guard, the conditions of his enlistment in the service, his personal liability to the public, the direct responsibility he bears vis-à-vis the public and the law, the many other powers granted to him upon enlistment, his special conditions of service, the discipline that binds him and the severe disciplinary punishment, the methods of discharge and dismissal from service - all of these are completely different from what is customary in the field of labor relations, whether the employer is private or public. Due to the special nature of the positions of the police and prison service in society, and due to the great responsibility associated with the position of a police officer or prison guard, the methods of recruitment, duties, powers, and discipline of a police officer or prison guard are determined by a special law, distinct from the rest of the civil servants.....