The state appealed the original judgment in the National Labor Court (after receiving approval to do so). The National Court, on behalf of the Honorable Vice-President Justice A. Barak-Ososkin and with the consent of her colleagues on the panel - President S. Adler, Judge A. Rabinowitz, the workers' representative, Mr. A. Sapir, and the employers' representative, Mr. G. Stoitsky, adopted the position of the Regional Court (Civil Appeal 1010/02 of September 26, 2004) (hereinafter: The judgment on appeal).
The main determinations in the judgment in the appeal
- As a rule, there is no room for a strict and restrictive interpretation of the Labor Court's jurisdiction, and a purposeful interpretation must be adopted. The purpose of labor law is to ensure that the employee has minimal rights. A narrow definition of "employee" may expose him to withholding wages that are not sanctioned. The interpretation of the term "worker" must be adapted to the current reality: "Times have changed, and with them the work frameworks have changed." Accordingly, there are situations in which certain laws of "protective labor law" will apply to the employee and some will not. The purpose of the specific law in question must be examined in order to decide whether it applies in one case or another. The purpose of Wage Protection Law, 5718-1958, 68 (hereinafter: Wage Protection Law) It is to ensure that those who do work will be paid for their work. Therefore, for the purposes of this law, a person who does not work in the regular frameworks, such as a "free participant" or for our purposes - an elected official - will also be considered an employee (see Labor Appeal 300274/96 Tzedka v. State of Israel - Army Radio, [Published in Nevo] (hereinafter: Matter Righteousness)).
The judgment of the National Court also relied to a large extent on the Seroussi. In Parashat Seroussi It was determined that an elected official is entitled to the rights granted to an employee in the unemployment insurance industry.The National Insurance Law [Consolidated Version], 5728-1968, 68 (hereinafter: The National Insurance Law) (The law was replaced by the National Insurance Law [Consolidated Version], 5755-1995, 68 205). Similarly, as stated, the National Court held in our case - that Rasmi is an "employee" of the Respondent, Wage Protection Law It applies to him (according to President Adler - Certain Instructions The Wage Protection Law, which is the subject of his lawsuit, applies to him), and therefore, the Labor Court has jurisdiction and the matter has been returned to the Regional Court to hear it.
- The judgment in the appeal was rendered, as stated, on September 26, 2004. Until February 28, 2006, when the present petition was filed, it appeared that the state had accepted or at least accepted the judgment in the appeal, and in any event, no further proceedings were taken. The "catalyst" for the filing of the present petition was the additional affair - the Nachmani (which is the additional layer in this petition). According to the state, the additional section is part of "The expansion of the phenomenon of elected officials applying for relief to the Labor Court, where in the past they would have taken it for granted to this honorable court(paragraph 28 of the petition). For this reason, the State petitions that this Court will hear the issue of jurisdiction despite the passage of time (noting that as of the date of filing the petition, the hearing on its merits has not yet begun to be clarified in the case of the Officialin the Regional Labor Court). In his remarks before us, counsel for the Official that the state's conduct suffers from a heavy delay that is sufficient in itself to bring about the rejection of the petition. The claim is unfounded. The state's silence for almost two years can certainly be interpreted as abandoning any objection it had, if any, to the decision of the regional court (see High Court of Justice 10191/03 Tamader v. Minister of the Interior ([Published in Nevo], 17.2.05)). Even if the parashat Nachmani On the surface, the fact that this is not an isolated incident but rather an attitude that emerges among the petitioners of the type of Official or Nachmani On the one hand, and the approach that emerges in the Labor Court's ruling, on the other hand, this does not change the fact that for Rasmi - this is a real delay.
As a rule, a court can and will accept a claim of delay that will lead to the dismissal of a petition in limine if it finds that it was filed late and that this caused damage or a change in the situation and harmed interests worthy of protection (whether these are the interests of the governmental authority, whether they are the interests of another person, or whether it is in the interest of the public):