"One is positive, which is that the person who performs the work will be part of the normal organizational structure of the factory, and the other, which is nothing but the other aspect of the same coin, and is negative - that the person who performs the work will not act in the performance of his work within the framework of his own business" (National Labor Court (National) 33/3-72 Cooperative Consumer Association Tel Aviv in a Tax Appeal - Gertenhuis [published in Nevo] PDA 5 141, 147 (1973)).
Additional auxiliary tests enumerated in the case law seek to assist in identifying the relationship between the performer of work and the beneficiary of the work. Among other things, the following questions are examined: who supervises the execution of the work and who controls its execution; whether the person performing the work must perform it personally; who provides the tools and equipment to carry out the work; whether there is a permanent work framework; the duration and regularity of the relationship between the parties; how the parties viewed their relationship and how they presented it to third parties; What is the form of salary payment and to whom different tax payments have been imposed?
The National Labor Court added that the question of the status of the worker must be examined against the background of the industrial context, and therefore "when the court comes to apply the guiding tests in determining the status of a work performer, it must also take into account the consequences that may derive from his decision" (Labor Appeal (National) 1392/02 Torbati v. Clalit Health Services [published in Nevo] (February 12, 2004)). In the same matter, the National Court even ruled that "there is no reason to shake an entire branch of business by changing the rules of engagement that apply to it."
- Without derogating from the aforesaid, we emphasize that the prevailing assumption is that the term "employee", like any other legal expression, must be interpreted according to the particular context in which it is examined. This was discussed by the Supreme Court in the Seroussi case, by President (ret.) Aharon Barak:
"In principle, each phrase has a special meaning in a certain context, according to that context. Therefore, the meaning of that expression itself may vary from context to context, according to the environment in which the expression lives, according to the purpose of the law in which it is embedded, and according to other interpretive considerations" (Additional Hearing of the High Court of Justice (Supreme) 6401/95 Seroussi v. National Labor Court IsrSC 52(4) 823 (1998)).