Civil Case (Nazareth) 61279-01-22 Anonymous v. Israel Police – Border Police Division

Decision

Before a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in limine.

1. Our Matter in the Claim According to The Torts Ordinance [New Version] (Hereinafter: "The Torts Ordinance"), for bodily and mental injuries caused to the plaintiff, during his work for defendant 1, when defendant 2 was the plaintiff's direct commander. According to the claim, the plaintiff began his regular service with defendant 1 in 1994.  Beginning in November 2018, he began to suffer humiliating treatment from defendant 2, who even boycotted him and excluded him from yeshivas and a WhatsApp group that was opened, took away his powers, until he became worthless at work.  The conduct of his direct commander as detailed in the statement of claim (paragraphs 14-16), which even wanted to bring about the termination of the plaintiff's employment, caused the plaintiff physical and mental problems that affected his functioning and he needed mental treatment, which led to the outbreak of an autoimmune disease in his wife.  Under the circumstances, the plaintiff went on extended sick leave, and upon his return, he did not return to his position, which caused him to lose confidence in the system, and he went on retirement leave on January 1, 2020, and retired from service on May 31, 2020.  On January 17, 2021, he began working as deputy director of operations at the Afula municipality, but was forced to leave after 5 months due to his mental state.  On February 17, 2021, a medical committee of the National Security Council determined that the plaintiff had a permanent medical disability of 10% (no committee documents were attached, it is unclear for which disability clause).  According to the plaintiff, the defendants were negligent towards him, harassed him and did not behave as a reasonable employer would have done in light of his mental distress, and therefore they must compensate him for the damages caused to him.
2. Prior to the filing of a statement of defense, the defendants filed this motion.
3. According to the defendants, despite the fact that the plaintiff chose to formulate the lawsuit, as a monetary claim, this is a claim that is essentially an employment relationship between the parties, when in the statement of claim it was alleged against defendant 1 that he did not behave towards him as a reasonable employer, did not provide him with proper working conditions, defendant 2, his direct commander abused him and he was unlawfully removed from his position. In addition, his rights were violated by defendant 1 with regard to the provision of emotional support.  These are all grounds found by the Court for Administrative Affairs, and this panel lacks substantive jurisdiction to hear the claim.
4. In his response, the plaintiff claimed that he was petitioning for compensation for bodily injuries suffered during his work, and that he was not directly or indirectly attacking an administrative decision or seeking to change such a decision. The plaintiff retired from his job on his own initiative, and does not demand compensation for this.  Defendant 2's conduct towards him is not unique to the workplace, and does not constitute an administrative decision.  The decision to remove him from his position was made after he returned from a long sick leave, and his damage had already taken shape.  Therefore, the motion to dismiss is lawful.

Discussion and Decision

5. After reviewing the arguments of the parties, I found that the application should be rejected.
6. As is well known, the substantive authority is usually determined according to the remedy test (Civil Appeal Authority 3749/12 Bar-Oz v. Sater [Published in Nevo] (Published on August 1, 2013)).  However, there are situations in which the substantive jurisdiction will be examined not according to the requested remedy, but also with regard to the cause of action or the identity of the litigants.  According to the defendants, this is also the case in this case, when the identity of the parties is sufficient to determine that this panel has no jurisdiction to hear the claim, since there is a in which an indirect attack on the relevant governmental act, and in the 93A The Police Ordinance has a unique arrangement that grants the Court for Administrative Affairs unique jurisdiction to adjudicate.
7. Insofar as the court's decision requires an examination of the conduct of the parties responsible for the plaintiff's terms of service and the manner of his employment, including an examination of their professional and other considerations, all in the framework of the performance of their duties, the sole authority to hear these matters is vested in the Court for Administrative Affairs, even if they were presented in the framework of the claim under the guise of a tort claim. The case law discusses cases in which it would be appropriate to set exceptions to the relief test only.  It was held that the fact that the plaintiff chose to attach to his claims a demand for payment in order to turn his claim into an 'indirect assault' that is permitted in the civil court should not be regarded as " In these cases, it is necessary to clarify the nature of the claim - is it civil or administrative? Is this a real indirect attack or is it actually a direct attack "in disguise"? (See for example Civil Appeal Authority 88/17 Golan v.  Mayor of Tel Aviv - Ron Huldai, [published in Nevo] published on May 9, 2018 (hereinafter: the Golan case), at paragraphs 2-3).  In this clarity, the remedy sought can serve us as an aid, as an indication.  But relief is not the be-all and end-all ...  Attaching a price to a claim is not a magic wand that changes the nature of the claim and the substantive issues it deals with " (ר' Civil Appeal Authority 6607/19 State of Israel - Israel Police v.  Moti Yakubov [Published in Nevo] (Published on February 12, 2020)).
8. A review of the statement of claim shows that the procedural framework we are dealing with is the tort of negligence, i.e., a cause of action. When In order to impose liability in tort on the employer for the tort of negligence, the plaintiff is required to point out the employer's duty of care towards him, which consists of a conceptual and concrete duty of care; On negligence that constitutes a breach of the duty of care The aforesaid; and the existence of a factual and legal causal connection between the breach of the duty of care and the damage caused (Civil Appeal 145/80 Vaknin v.  Beit Shemesh Local Council, IsrSC 37(1) 113, 122 (1982)); Civil Appeal 3580/06 Yosef v.  State of Israel ([Published in Nevo]).  In other words, the court was required to consider the question of whether there were flaws in the defendants' conduct towards the plaintiff and whether they amounted to negligence, since they were allegedly aware of his mental state.
9. The Courts for Administrative Matters Law, תש"ס - 2000 states:

"

5. The Court for Administrative Matters will hear the following:

  (1) A petition against a decision of an authority or a body subscribed to the First Addendum in the matter of a subscriber to the First Addendum, and with the exception of a petition in which the main remedy sought concerned the enactment of regulations, including the repeal of regulations, the declaration of their nullity or the issuance of an order to enact regulations (hereinafter - an administrative petition);