Paragraph 11 of the lawsuit: "In 2014, the plaintiff turned to the courts against the defendant's decision For an Illegal Appointment..." (paragraph 12 of the respondent's response).
Paragraph 12 of the lawsuit: "After this request... The defendant began to take revenge on the plaintiff... Prevented his promotion..."
Clauses 18-19 of the Claim: "... From here, there was a turnaround in the organization's attitude toward the plaintiff, and already In the Placement Discussion The new one that was held..."
Clauses 20-22 of the lawsuit: "In bad faith, the defendant registered the plaintiff... As an employee in charge of a log of entry... A position at the lower level of the organization..... The entire purpose of their embedding in the computer was to harm it and reducing his status in various tenders, in order to harm his professional progress and status". (para. 14 of the respondent's response).
Paragraph 15 of the respondent's response: "This is also the case Tender Requirements The position of employment officer at Ayalon Prison has been 'adjusted' so that another officer will be chosen for it..."
Paragraph 35 of the lawsuit: "As a result of his non-assignment, The plaintiff was also not promoted to the level of a hybrid rabbi."
Paragraph 2(a) of the lawsuit: "The plaintiff believed the promises made to him by his commanders and agreed to perform a position to which he was attached, but the promises were violated and he Left without promotion in rank".
Section 49 of the lawsuit: "... There is no congruence between Failure to promote it of the officer to the positive opinion."
- It follows that the plaintiff's causes of action, in practice, validate a transfer from a position and/or a change of rank, and that despite the fact that some of the remedies for the claim are financial, the causes of action are based on the matters enumerated In section 129(a) To the Prison Service Order.
- In this regard, I will add from the words of the court on the matter Labor Dispute (Jerusalem Areas) 35234-05-22 Kinneret Cohen - State of Israel - Israel Prison Service (Nevo 30 January 2023):
"... In this regard, it was emphasized that the Labor Court will not be required to deal with the matters listed in section 129(a) of the Prisons Ordinance , not even by way of indirect assault. In other words, when the claim is for monetary relief but is based on a decision in gerra in the matters enumerated in the section."
- And also from the words of the court in the ruling of the Honorable 60. The President Ravit Tzadik, which was recently accepted on the matter Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv) 59143-10-21 Michael Brandspiegel - State of Israel - Israel Police (Published in Nevo, October 3, 2022):
"As can be seen from a perusal of the statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges a series of abuse that was conducted against him during his service with the defendant, inter alia, because of the conduct with him that led to his removal from office and his transfer to another position, as well as due to the removal of the seizures to which the plaintiff was entitled. It is therefore clear that in the framework of the hearing of the question of whether the plaintiff has indeed experienced workplace bullying, the court will need to discuss the questions listed in section 93A of the Ordinance, which are expressly excluded from the court's jurisdiction."
- Considering the case law cited above, "When an incidental hearing is required on the issues listed in section 93A2 of the Ordinance, there is no place for the court to be required to do so... This was explicitly prohibited by the legislature."
- Moreover, in paragraph 8 of his response, the plaintiff himself states: "The plaintiff will further argue that the matter of the plaintiff's promotion is a result of the abuse he experienced throughout his careerThus, even according to the plaintiff, there is no dispute that the cause of action for the abuse is directly related and is even based on the matter of his promotion.
- Yes, it is not hidden from my eyesSo, that the plaintiff is referring to additional legal proceedings in his case (pp. 1-2 of the claim), in the framework of which he had previously petitioned the Central-Lod District Court, sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs, against decisions relating to his appointment. In other words, the plaintiff is or should be familiar with the appropriate procedures in these matters and could have avoided filing the claim with the Labor Court, and thus could have reduced the potential harm to him, as he claims.
Conclusion:
- In light of all of the above, the motion for summary dismissal due to lack of substantive jurisdiction -Accepted And we order that the lawsuit be deleted.
- The plaintiff may file his claim with the competent court.
- Beyond the letter of the law, there is no order for costs.
Given today, 12 Adar 5783, (05 March 2023), in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.