"This is not the case with the administrative courts, when they come to them matters that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the transfer of the place of hearing that accompany the question of the legality of the dismissal. When the main question to be decided is the examination of the legality of the dismissal of a police officer or prison guard, the legislature determined that it should be examined using tools that are not taken from the field of labor law; If the legislature wanted the authority to transfer a place of hearing to extend to police officers and prison guards who expose corruption, it is presumed that it would have stated in the law that, notwithstanding what is stated in section 129(a) of the Ordinance, the authority of a court to move a place of hearing is not limited."
- The rationale underlying the exclusion of police officers and prison guards from the court's jurisdiction stems from the perception that in connection with these two populations, legal tools taken from the world of labor law should not be discussed due to the special nature of the service and its unique characteristics."
"This provision of the law was enacted deliberately, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The legislature, which applied the law in relation to civil servants who are not part of the police and prison guards, did not qualify section 129(a) of the Ordinance, and in the absence of an explicit statutory provision, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court for Administrative Affairs remains...
- If so, while according to Article 76 According to the Courts Law, the Court for Administrative Affairs is entitled to hear matters that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court to transfer a place of discussion to work, but this is not the case with regard to the transfer of a place of discussion to work when it comes to discussing administrative matters.
- However, as noted, there are issues that the Labor Court is authorized to hear in the matter of police officers and prison guards, such as claims for wage differences, pensions, etc., which do not fall within the scope of Articles 93 To the Police Ordinance and/or Article 129 to the Prisons Ordinance – this is not the case in our case.
From the general to the individual
- The matter of the claim at this time is the failure to promote the plaintiff and as such is within the jurisdiction of the Court for Administrative Affairs. The clarification of the alleged abuse claim in the framework of an administrative petition in the Court of Administrative Affairs is also consistent with the purpose of the law, which gave expression to the uniqueness of service in the security agencies and their complexity vis-à-vis their hierarchical nature.
- Conducting these proceedings in the Labor Court, hearing testimonies, and conducting an evidentiary proceeding entail potential burdens and is inconsistent with the purpose of the legislation to prevent a prison guard/police officer from being connected to the special judicial framework of the Labor Court, which is liable to undermine important foundations in the special organizational structure of the Service.
- Unreasonable and disproportionate in my opinionSo, that the labor courts will hold hearings on status matters under the guise of a claim for compensation for improper conduct of an employment relationship (bullying). And as it was ruled In a High Court of Justice case 727/85 Netser v. The National Labor Court (Published in Nevo, March 30, 1987):
"In light of the declared and clear trend... In my opinion, the purpose of the clear provision in section 93A should be fulfilled even in circumstances such as these... It is unacceptable to me that it will become a matter subject to the jurisdiction of the court by being attached to another cause, which will serve as a kind of cover-up, that will make the matter of dismissal a matter of dispute. This, in my feeling, would be tantamount to thwarting the purpose of section 93A with all its components, since there is no need to say that any of the issues listed in section 93A can easily be combined with accompanying grounds, which will serve as a kind of entrance ticket to the Labor Court."
- Similarly, in the case of the High Court of Justice 1214/97 Rabbi Yitzhak Halamish v. The National Labor Court, 55(2) 647 (1999) paragraph 22, the Supreme Court expressed itself decisively when it held:
"We are speaking in the strictest sense of the law... It seems to me that the interpretation of the provision of section 129(a) as permitting is the granting of indirect authority to the Labor Court (through section 76 of the Courts Law (Consolidated Version), which is sufficient to undermine the purpose of the arrangement that was determined."
- The plaintiff himself cites and quotes in his response from the High Court of Justice 727/85 Kricheli Netzer v. Labor Court, [Published in Nevo] that the roles of the police and the prison service in society are unique and sensitive, and therefore "determining the methods of recruitment of a police officer or prison guard, his duties, his powers and its meaning in a special law, as distinct from the rest of the civil servants... The connection of a police officer or prison guard to the special judicial framework of the Labor Court, in matters that he may see as rooted in the labor relationship between him and his commanders, is liable to undermine important foundations in the delicate and special organizational structure of the service."
- Not convincedSo The respondent's response is that his claim is detached from disciplinary and chain of command issues, in the framework of which it is possible to consider, in special and exceptional cases, to be conducted in the Labor Court. On the contrary, All the examples detailed by the plaintiff himself, in the framework of his response (and in the framework of the statement of claim), relate to and/or stem from matters related to his promotion. Thus, for example:
Paragraph 10 of the lawsuit: "Despite the fact that the plaintiff served in all the positions... With devotion... It seems that the organization has set itself the goal of abusing and humiliating him. and prevent its promotion..". (paragraph 12 of the respondent's response).