(b) Later on, and to the extent that the answer to this is positive, it is necessary to further examine whether the matter has been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by virtue of section 93A of the Police Ordinance. Section 93A actually affects the application of the second test in the framework of the three-stage test (to the extent that we are required to do so) when certain matters are found by virtue of it from the definition of a cause of action in an employment relationship. In accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling – which we will discuss below – it is possible to use as an auxiliary test in distinguishing between "clean" wage claims, which are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Court, and claims whose cause involves a decision in one of the matters listed in section 93A.
- It should be emphasized that when the statement of claim has a number of grounds, then this test must be applied in relation to each cause of action separately. We will preface the latter and note that if, to the extent that an examination of the various causes of action according to the above two-stage test leads to different results in terms of substantive jurisdiction, then there is no choice but to split the claim. In other words, matters that fall within the substantive jurisdiction of the Labor Court – since the claim falls within the scope of section 24 of the Law and does not involve a decision on one of the matters listed in section 93A of the Ordinance – will be heard before it. Whereas, matters that are not within the jurisdiction of the Labor Court – since the decision in the action involves a decision on one of the matters listed in section 93A of the Ordinance – will be heard before the Court for Administrative Affairs.
- It should be emphasized that the above principles apply even when we are dealing with an action that arose in one of the matters listed in section 93A of the Ordinance, and even when monetary relief is sought and a decision on the matter listed in section 93A is only in the case of garra. Therefore, even such an action is not within the jurisdiction of the Labor Court.
- As for the monetary relief, in the appeal of Petition/Administrative Claim 2569/19 Moshe Pozailov v. State of Israel - Israel Police [published in Nevo] (December 3, 2019) (hereinafter: the Pozailov case), an administrative petition was heard by a police officer who was promoted to the rank of superintendent in 2016, and then in 2017 filed an administrative petition with the Court for Administrative Affairs in Gedera that since 2001 he was entitled to the rank of superintendent and related rights. In its judgment, the Supreme Court addressed, inter alia, the issue of substantive jurisdiction, and ruled that since a matter falls within the scope of section 93A of the Ordinance, the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Court for Administrative Affairs, even if monetary remedies are involved in that proceeding. And so it is said (our emphases):
"Section 5 of the Administrative Courts Law, 5760-2000 (hereinafter: the Administrative Courts Law) regulates the powers of the Court for Administrative Affairs, and within the framework of these powers, according to Item 37(1) of the First Addendum to the Law, a petition against the Israel Police in matters listed in Section 93A(a) ofthe Police Ordinance is also included. In this context, it was recently determined that a police officer's objections to a decision not to grant him a rank, even if monetary remedies are involved in the same proceeding, fall within the scope of section 93A of the Police Ordinance, and therefore the substantive authority to hear the entire proceeding is that of the Court for Administrative Affairs (High Court of Justice 1052/19 Avraham v. State of Israel - Israel Police [published in Nevo] para. 5 (August 19, 2019) – hereinafter the Avraham case).