"Section 24 specifies the claims that 'the Regional Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear'... A number of laws that were amended or enacted after the enactment of the Labor Court Law stipulate that the Labor Court has unique authority to hear claims under them
....
It is proposed, therefore, to amend section 24(a)(5) and authorize the tribunal to hear any matter that is granted jurisdiction under any law."
Today, there are a large number of special pieces of legislation that grant the Labor Court unique authority to hear claims on their merits. One of the provisions that is at the center of this appeal, and the wording of which will be presented below, is the provision of section 14 of the Equality Law. In addition, and without exhausting it, see also: Section 10 of the Equal Opportunities in Employment Law, 5748-1988 (hereinafter: the Equal Opportunities in Employment Law); Section 3 of the Workers' Protection Law (Exposure of Offenses and Violation of Integrity or Proper Administration), 5757-1997; Section 13A of the Women's Employment Law, 5714-1954 (as amended by Amendment 31 of 2006); Section 5 of the Protection of Workers in Times of Emergency Law, 5766-2006; Section 4 of the Right to Work in Residence and in Appropriate Conditions Law, 5767-2007; The Prohibition of Receiving Collateral from an Employee Law, 5772-2012; The Wages Protection Law, 5718-1958; the Advance Notice of Dismissal and Resignation Law, 5761-2001; and more.
- The test in section 24(a)(1) of the substantive jurisdiction of the Labor Court is a three-stage test: the test of the identity of the parties – that is, whether it is a claim between an employee and an employer or their substitutes; The cause test – whether the cause of action stems from an employment relationship; The test of excluded grounds – not all grounds arising from an employment relationship are within the jurisdiction of the Labor Court, and this applies in relation to tortious causes that are not within the jurisdiction of the Labor Court in the light of section 24(a)(1) and subject to section 24(a)(1b) of the Law (see Civil Appeals Authority 2407/14 Ruham v. Agnes France Peres in Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (October 14, 2015)).
- There is an employment relationship between a police officer and the police, and therefore lawsuits filed by police officers on the basis of the employment relationship fall within the jurisdiction of the Labor Court. This is subject to Section 93A of the Police Ordinance (New Version), 5731-1971 (hereinafter: the Ordinance or the Police Ordinance) – which was added in 1971 – and it reads as follows:
"93A. (A) An action that objects to the use of the powers given under this Ordinance with respect to the appointment of a senior police officer, the appointment of a police officer to the position, his transfer from one position to another or from one place to another, his promotion or demotion from rank, his suspension from his position, his dismissal from the Corps, the extension of his service due to an emergency, his employment outside his duties within the framework of the police, or his discharge from service – shall not be considered as a claim arising from an employee-employer relationship for the purposes of section 24 of the Labor Courts Law. 1969.