The following is the reference to the differences enumerated by the state:
- Eligibility for wages - As stated, the emphasis is on the fact that entitlement is not self-evident and is contingent on meeting the requirements outlined in the Ministry of Interior's circular requirements. I don't think there's any truth to this distinction. The question is how to define the final "product" that the worker will receive at the end of the day, and not the stages that preceded it. The Petitioner argues, in this context, that the mere use of the concept of wages does not necessarily bring the discussion of it to the door of the labor courts, since "There are many types of fees such as fees paid to a lawyer, tuition fees, etc." (paragraph 67 of the petition). Indeed, this is so. The word "wages" does not necessarily dictate the court that will hear it, but for our purposes it is indeed a matter of wages, and the examples cited above are irrelevant. Once it has been determined that the conditions have been met, an elected official, like any other employee, will receive a salary for his work. Therefore, for the purpose of Wage Protection Law The place where his claims will be clarified, if he has any, should be the Labor Court. Absolute entitlement to wages, as opposed to eligibility contingent on the fulfillment of certain conditions, is part of the employment relationship between the elected official and the person who is supposed to pay his salary. The body that pays the wages is the employer. The obvious question is what would be the position of the Petitioner if he were an elected official, whose entitlement, including the period of entitlement, is not in dispute, but whose salary is not paid for one reason or another? A similar question was answered by the Tel Aviv District Court, Judge J. Kling Miscellaneous Applications Civil (Tel Aviv) 64634/99 Haj Yahya Abd al-Rahim v. Adv. Shalom Singer ([Published in Nevo] given on January 24, 2000) and it was stated as follows:
"The purpose of deterrence in the Wage Protection Law is to ensure that wages are paid on time. In this regard, there is no room to distinguish between an employee who is employed under a contract and an elected official, who is entitled to wages and who does not receive it on time. This is especially the case with regard to an elected official who receives a pension after retiring from office. If it were still possible to consider the status of the incumbent head of the authority, who is responsible for the payment of wages by the authority, then in the case of a pension recipient, the matter is different. Receiving a pension depends on its receipt by the council, just like any other employee. There may even be cases in which it will be of great importance to apply the wage protection to an officer who receives an allowance, in order to protect his right to an allowance paid to him by a local authority controlled by his opponents in the past" (paragraph 6).