In the Seroussi case , which is, as stated, the guiding judgment, President Barak said, inter alia:
"The reasons underlying unemployment insurance apply equally to both those who are employed by virtue of the law and those who are employed outside the law. Indeed, even a person who is employed by virtue of the law - such as the petitioner before us - has lost his source of livelihood after he was forced to leave his occupation; His own standard of living must also be protected; His own existence with dignity must also be preserved. The manner in which the employment began is not at all relevant to the need for support for those who have lost their livelihood" (p. 832).
What was said there was in relation to the purpose underlying unemployment insurance. They are all the more true when it comes to salary protection.
- The aforesaid is an answer to the additional distinguishing characteristics that the Petitioner enumerated. neither the scope of the position, nor the existence or absence of supervision over the presence of the elected person in his place of work, or the fact that the work is sometimes performed in parallel with other work performed by the public servant (such as in the case of a Official who performed his work in parallel with his work in a school for which he received a salary) do not negate the need for someone who performs work under the same conditions to protect his salary. Recognizing the complexity of today's possible labor relations that the era of rigid frameworks is over, and work can be done anywhere, at any time, also requires recognition of the need to protect work performed in each of those flexible frameworks. Thus, for example, there is no reason why someone who works for two employers is a possibility that has been recognized in case law (see for this matter Civil Appeal 158/68 Official Receiver v' Viva International BTax Appeal In dismantling, פ"4:22(2) 871 (1968)), will not be entitled to full protection of his salary regardless of the hours in which the work is carried out in each of the workplaces. Acceptance of the central thesis underlying the judgment in the Seroussi, meaning that the test is functional, opens the door to the inclusion of elected officials in the workers' families.
Will the functional test be affected by the existence of an alternative normative source for the requested remedy?
- Being aware that the acceptance of the functional test for the definition of a certain person as an employee closes the door on the acceptance of the petition, the Petitioner enumerated two main differences between the situation created in the Seroussi case and our case as follows: 1. In Seroussi's case, there was no other normative source that could have provided the proper purpose that unemployment benefits are meant to achieve (paragraph 93 of the petition), and hence the need to recognize Seroussi as an employee for the purposes of the petition Chapter 7 IIThe National Insurance Law Regarding unemployment benefits. 2. In the Seroussi case, the question of the authority of the Labor Court did not arise at all, since Article 391 30The National Insurance Law which was the basis of the claim there, grants the authority to hear the claim by virtue of it to the Labor Court and does not condition it on the plaintiff being an employee. The differences enumerated by the state do exist. I accept that in the Seroussi case the question of authority did not arise in light of what was stated inArticle 391 30The National Insurance Law. At the same time, this does not negate the relevance of the Seroussi rule to our case. The central normative determination in the Seroussi case is that the criterion for the existence of an employee-employer relationship rests on a functional test. Because it believed that a public servant was also entitled to unemployment insurance, the court saw Srossi as an employee. The parallel to our matter does not require explanation.
The very existence of the ability in principle to attack the decisions of the Council and the Minister in theHigh Court of Justice Because they are administrative decisions, it does not necessarily teach that High Court of Justice It is the most appropriate court to hear the matter. On the way to making a decision regarding the most appropriate court to hear a particular matter (when there is more than one court authorized to hear it), there are many considerations that must be taken into account. Among other things, systemic considerations of burden are also relevant to the decision, but the decisive test is the test of the dominant component of the claim - this test and the additional considerations regarding the identification of the appropriate court will be discussed below.