The touchstone that distinguishes between prejudice and prejudice lies in the willingness of the committee member to listen and be convinced. Prejudice leads to the disqualification of a member of the tenders committee because it testifies to a "locked opinion" that cannot be changed. On the other hand, a prejudice does not disqualify the member from participating in the committee, as it leaves his opinion open to persuasion and substantive judgment during the proceeding (High Court of Justice 685/78 Mahmoud v. Minister of Education and Culture, IsrSC 33 (1) 767,771-772 (1979)).
- Another question is whether a statement made by a senior officer who is not a member of the examination committee in relation to a particular candidate can be considered a preconceived opinion or a prejudice. In this regard, there may be a number of answers that depend on the content of the statement, its timing, the identity of the recipient, the degree of actual influence, and whether the committee members remain open to considering the candidate independently. The examination does not end with the question of what the officer intended to say. It is also necessary to examine whether the statement was brought to the attention of the committee members, whether they were influenced by it, whether the candidate was allowed to voice his case, and whether the decision was made on the basis of his qualifications, experience and suitability for the position (High Court of Justice 61683-12-25 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. Government of Israel [Nevo] (2026)). In addition, "a member of an advisory committee or a member of a tender committee, to whom inquiries are received in order to influence his judgment on the basis of improper reasons that do not relate to the matter, must notify the committee of the request and its content" (High Court of Justice 606/86 Mahmoud Muhammad Abdel-Hai v. Director General of the Ministry of Education and Culture [Nevo] (1987)).
In addition, the obligation to prove that the committee members were guided by improper considerations rests on the person who claims this, Labor Appeal (National) 673/09 Adv. Tali Gilad-Mazor v. Medita Yashar [Nevo] (2010)
- After all this, it should be remembered that the Tribunal does not replace the professional discretion of the tenders committee, and intervention in its decision is reserved for exceptional cases in which one of the criteria of the tenders laws as determined in legislation and case law was materially violated (Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 20037-03-25 Zohar Hutzot Ltd. Kiryat Ono Municipality [Nevo] (2025). (
The purpose of the temporary relief
- The provisions of Regulation 94 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018 (hereinafter: the Regulations), which is found in Chapter 15 dealing with "Temporary Remedies", apply in the Labor Court by virtue of Regulation 129 of the Labor Court Regulations (Procedures), 5752-1991 and define the purpose of the temporary relief "... to ensure a prima facie right during the legal proceeding and the proper and efficient conduct of the proceeding or the proper execution of the judgment".
The provisions of Regulation 95(b) of the Regulations stipulate that an application for temporary relief may be granted "if he is convinced, on the basis of prima facie sufficient evidence of the existence of a cause of action, of the fulfillment of the conditions for granting the relief as stated in this chapter and of the necessity of the temporary relief for the purpose of achieving the purpose".