Employee-Employer Relations - The Normative Outline
- The Petitioner's main argument, which runs like a thread through all the chapters of the petition, is that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Respondents, and the local authority or the State, and without them, the Labor Court did not have jurisdiction. This argument is based on Article 24 30The Labor Court Law This is what he says:
"24. Jurisdiction of a regional court
(a) A regional court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate -
(1) In claims between an employee or his successor and employer or his successor whose cause is the employee-employer relationship, including the question regarding the very existence of an employee-employer relationship, and with the exception of an action that arose inthe Torts Ordinance [New Version].
(1a) In an action that arose in negotiations prior to the conclusion of a contract for the creation of an employee-employer relationship, in an action that arose in such a contract before the employee-employer relationship was created or after such relations were terminated, or in an action that arose in the acceptance or non-acceptance of a person for employment;"
Section 24(a)(1) He presents two cumulative conditions: the plaintiff is the person in respect of whom there is an employee-employer relationship, and the cause of action is rooted in that relationship (see in this regard). High Court of Justice 1214/97 Halamish N' The National Labor Court, פ"4:35(2) 647, 652 (1998) (hereinafter: פרשת Halamish)). On the definition of an employee, streams of ink have already been spilled:
"The court, including the Labor Court, has discussed in many judgments the question of who is an employee. The main test that arises from the judgments is a mixed test, at the center of which is the integration test. According to this test, a person is considered an employee, firstly, if he integrates into the normal activity of a factory (the positive aspect of the test), and secondly, if he does not have an independent business of his own (the negative aspect of the test). See, for example, High Court of Justice 5168/93 Mor v. National Labor Court, IsrSC 50(4) 628, 650-646)" (High Court of Justice 1163/98 Sadot v. Israel Prison Service, IsrSC 55(4) 817, 831 (2001)).