Labor Dispute (Be’er Sheva) 57632-01-25 Dvir Alon – State of Israel – Israel Police

Judgment

1. We have before us the request of the State of Israel - the Israel Police (hereinafter: "the Applicant" or "the Defendant" or "the Police") to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff, Mr. Alon Dvir (hereinafter: "the Respondent" or "the Plaintiff") in limine in the absence of substantive jurisdiction of the Labor Court (hereinafter: the "Application").

Factual Background

2. The respondent, with the rank of advanced sergeant, enlisted in the Applicant's service in 2002. The respondent served in various core positions, such as detective and team leader of a detective unit in the Lachish region.  After a break of about two years in service, and from January 2024 until today, the respondent has served as an administrative transportation coordinator at the Jaffa Police Station (paragraphs B-D of the statement of claim).  In January 2025, the Respondent filed his claim before this Court, in which he petitions for declaratory relief regarding the consolidation of seniority and change of rank, declaratory relief regarding the return of the plaintiff to the budgetary pension track, an injunction to cancel the sanction of the plaintiff's removal from the Southern District, compensation in the amount of ILS 189,566 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for termination of the plaintiff's employment, and wage differentials in the amount of ILS 513,936 (paragraph 27 of the statement of claim).
3. In summary, it should be said that the plaintiff was suspected of committing offenses of bribery, fraud and breach of trust in 2020, against this background, and since the offenses of which the plaintiff was suspected are offenses involving disgrace, it was decided on October 13, 2020 to dismiss him from the applicant. Following the closure of a file of claims under various laws against the respondent on July 15, 2021, an additional hearing was held for the respondent on October 11, 2021, and on November 22, 2021, a decision was made to dismiss the respondent, changing the grounds for dismissal from disgrace to non-conformity; The plaintiff's dismissal came into effect on January 24, 2022 (regarding the respondent's dismissal proceeding, see paragraphs B-E of the application and their appendices).  The background to the filing of the lawsuit is the process of terminating the respondent's employment with the police in the years 2020-2021 until the dismissal took effect on January 24, 2022.  In addition, the Respondent raised allegations regarding the Applicant's conduct towards him upon his return to service in 2024, which included harassment and raising claims of a debt that was created to the Respondent as a result of his dismissal (paragraph 18 of the Response to the Application).
4. The Respondent filed a petition against the second dismissal decision with the Court for Administrative Affairs (Administrative Petition 4026-01-22) [Nevo]; on September 12, 2022, a judgment was given in the petition (the Honorable Judge Anat Singer); In summary, it should be said that in view of the Respondent's medical inability to perform a polygraph test, which, if a spokesperson comes out, the Applicant will consider reinstating him to service, it was determined that the Respondent's case will be returned to the Respondent's hearing, which will examine whether there is an alternative way to "remove the cloud" over the Respondent's head and accordingly to issue a new decision in the Respondent's matter The possibility of reinstating him to service in a position that is appropriate for his new medical limitations (see: paragraphs 20-21 of the decision in the petition of September 12, 2022, Appendix 26 to the statement of claim).
5. On January 4, 2024, the head of the Police Operations ordered the respondent's reinstatement, and the plaintiff returned to service in January 2024 as a transportation coordinator in the Tel Aviv district. upon the respondent's return to service and subsequently disagreements arose between him and the applicant on issues related to the respondent's return to service (paragraphs 8.g-9 of the application); Among other things, the Applicant claimed to be indebted to the Respondent for overpayment, and according to the Respondent, on May 8, 2024, she began to actively act to collect this debt and demanded that deductions be made from the Respondent's salary (paragraphs 15-16 of the statement of claim).  Therefore, on September 24, 2024, the Respondent filed with this Court a request for an urgent injunction instructing the Applicant to freeze her decision regarding the debt, as well as her decision regarding the taking of disciplinary measures, including a commander's note in respect of the offense that was allegedly committed in 2020 (paragraph 17 of the statement of claim).  On January 30, 2024, the Honorable President Frankel issued a resolution, in which it was determined as follows:

"Since no main claim has been filed and it is not possible to know whether the request for interim relief is sufficient to ensure the execution of the judgment, and since the application was filed with delay and since it is an injunction, it is liable to be rejected.  Even without addressing all of the state's arguments, including that the temporary remedies requested in the application, which includes appendices of more than 1,000 pages, are broad and unfocused remedies - and are not at all suitable for a temporary relief proceeding, as well as arguments regarding the substantive and local jurisdiction of the Beer-Sheva Regional Labor Court" (paragraph 8 of the decision).

6. On January 21, 2025, the respondent filed his claim with this court. On May 25, 1955, the Applicant petitioned for the dismissal of the claim in limine due to lack of substantive jurisdiction.

The parties' arguments

7. According to the Applicant, the claim should be dismissed out of hand due to lack of substantive authority. The matter of the action is the Respondent's request for declaratory remedies, an injunction and monetary compensation, all of which stem from the Applicant's decisions regarding the Respondent's dismissal from the police in 2020 and 2021, as well as over claims raised by the Respondent against the Respondent's conduct upon his return to service in 2024.

The Applicant further argued that in his lawsuit the Respondent claims many defects in the process of termination of his employment and unlawful dismissal, as well as abuse during his return to work and selective enforcement, removal from the Southern District, the application of disciplinary measures and the demand for payment of a debt (paragraph 10 of the Application).  In the Applicant's opinion, these are professional decisions that were made in the Respondent's case and fall within the scope of the authority set forth in Section 93A of the Police Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971 (hereinafter: the Police Ordinance), and therefore the Labor Court lacks substantive jurisdiction to hear them (section 12 of the Application).