"The connection of a police officer or a prison guard to the special judicial framework of the Labor Court in matters that he may see as rooted in the labor relationship between him and his commanders is liable to undermine important foundations in the delicate and special organizational structure of the service.
There is no intention to be released from the application of the Labor Court Law, except with respect to certain claims related to the special nature of the service. Other powers of the Labor Court, such as its powers regarding withholding wages and annual leave... Similarly, in claims under the Wages Protection Law, 5718-1958, and more, he shall not detract from them."
( emphases added).
- The case law held that it is sufficient for a claim to raise as a disputed question one of the issues listed in section 93A of the Ordinance, even if monetary remedies are involved in the same proceeding, in order for it to be outside the scope of jurisdiction in transferring a place of discussion to work. InAppeal Petition/Administrative Claim 2569/19 Moshe Pozailov v. State of Israel - Israel Police [published in Nevo] (of December 3, 2019), it was held:
"... In this context, it was recently determined that objections by a police officer to a decision not to grant him a rank, even if financial remedies are involved in that proceeding, fall within the scope of section 93A of the Police Ordinance, and therefore the substantive authority to hear the entire proceeding is that of the Court for Administrative Affairs... The circumstances of the appeal before us are somewhat different, because the appellant does not demand that he be promoted. After all, the rank was finally awarded to him in 2016. However, and as was ruled in the Avraham case, it is sufficient for a claim to raise as a disputed question one of the issues listed in section 93A of the Police Ordinance, so that the entire claim will be outside the jurisdiction of the Labor Court... This is in contrast to cases of 'clean' wage claims that do not relate at all to a dispute regarding appointments or the granting of a rank, in which it was determined that the competent court is the Labor Court" (emphasis added).
- In the Zelig case, it was clarified that even claims based on monetary relief, relating to the issues listed in section 93A(a) of the Police Ordinance, will not be heard in the labor courts:
"When, incidentally, a decision is required in the matter of the subscription in section 93A of the Police Ordinance, even if it involves financial relief, there is no place for the Labor Court to require this..."
- And in the circumstances before us -
In the statement of claim, the plaintiff claims that the decision to dismiss him was made illegally, "for no reason and in fact before he was convicted," when it was tainted by his discrimination against other employees and in contravention of proper management. The plaintiff petitions for his return to the ranks of the police and alternatively for compensation for the damages caused to him as a result of his unlawful dismissal, according to him. In his response, the plaintiff argues that five years after his dismissal, the reinstatement remedy is not the main remedy, but rather the monetary relief (paragraphs 17-20, paragraphs 30 of the plaintiff's response).
- However, the question of reinstating the plaintiff to work, as well as the question of the plaintiff's entitlement to financial relief for his unlawful dismissal, according to him, as well as the denial of compensation/allowances and the question of the financial damage caused to him, all stem from the question of the correctness of the decision in the matter of "his dismissal from the corps... or his discharge from service...", in the words of section 93A of the Police Ordinance. A decision therein requires addressing the issues stated in section 93A , directly or indirectly, which are not within the substantive jurisdiction of the Labor Court, as stated above.
- For this reason, even amending the statement of claim, and leaving only the monetary relief in place, while quantifying the amount of the claim and in detail, as requested by the plaintiff, will not help. This is because we are not dealing with a purely monetary claim, such as wage differences, etc., but rather with a claim that will require an examination of the exercise of the powers of the police in the matter of the decision to dismiss him, as explained above, and is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in accordance with section 93A of the Ordinance.
Conclusion
- In view of the aforesaid, the motion to dismiss the claim is granted, and the claim is dismissed. The aforesaid does not prevent the plaintiff from filing an appropriate claim with the competent court.
- Despite the result we reached, in the circumstances of the case, and only beyond the letter of the law, we decided not to charge the plaintiff with costs.
- An appeal against this judgment may be filed with the National Labor Court within 30 days from the date it is served with the party wishing to appeal.
Given today, September 09, 2025, in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.