The common conclusion is both to the academic writing, as well as to the many judgments cited in it and to the Seroussiis that there is no room for a rigid mathematical definition of the concept of employee, or of the employee-employer relationship. The definition must be flexible while preserving the old and leaving room for new developments and trends. This determination is consistent with the recognition that none of the classic tests that guided the courts in the past provides a complete solution to the complexity of the concept of working and all the "facets" it contains. In the matter Seroussi President Barak noted that even the integration test, which in the past was considered the main test for the purpose of recognizing a certain person as an employee, is no longer considered an exclusive test, and there is no other test that has replaced it for this purpose. On the basis of the above, we will also reach the conclusion that there is no inherent barrier to the recognition of a certain type of work performers, such as elected officials, as employees - and from here on the examination must be specific and relate to both the specific data of the performance of the work and to the law by virtue of which the relief is requested (we will address the issue of relief separately below).
Does the purpose of the law negate the recognition of a flexible and changing definition of the concept of the employee?
- As a counterweight to the arguments supporting a flexible interpretation as detailed above, and on the basis of its basic assumption that the authority must be derived from the law, the state argues that the provisions of the law relating to the authority (Article 24) should be given a restrictive interpretation, because it is a special court with special powers that exclude the jurisdiction of the courts (Article 122). In this regard, the Petitioner refers to judgments in which the Tribunal itself has recognized the duty to act with "self-restraint" when interpreting its substantive jurisdiction (see National Labor Court Hearing For 3-8 Leibowitz v. Pollak Estate, PDA 119, 131 (hereinafter: the Leibowitz)).