A JURIDICAL PRECEDENT GIVEN BY THE STATE'S LABOR BOARD

01/09/2010 | Practice field: Labor Law

The issue above was litigated for the first time in Israel. A female physician, represented by Advocate Ophir Miller and Advocate Adam Keren from Miller & Co. Law Offices, appealed against Kupat Holim Maccabbi for her right to litigate at the State's Labor Board and not at the court of arbitration.

It all began with a lawsuit submitted by the physician to the District Labor Board against Kupat Holim Maccabbi due to her unjustified dismissal after she uncovered corruption at local clinic and complained she was sexually harassed. Her main argument was that the dismissal was against the protection of workers Act. Therefore she claimed for a statement that nullifies the dismissal and for her return for work at Kupat Holim Maccabbi, which tried to abstain conducting a session at the Labor Court. It argued that due to an agreement, which the physician is signed on, that states in a term that any arbitration would be litigated at the tribunal of Kupat Holim Maccabbi the District Labor Board bears no authority of ruling this case. The District Labor Board approved Kupat Holim Maccabbi's argument and instructed the stay of proceedings of that complaint and its removal to the intern tribunal of Kupat Holim Maccabbi.

Due to the District Labor Board's decision an appeal was submitted to the State's Labor Board which had to decide if, according to the circumstances, the dispute between the appellant and Kupat Holim Maccabbi should be conducted at the District Labor Board or should be conducted within a procedure of arbitration at the intern tribunal of Kupat Holim Maccabbi, considering the term indicating arbitration issues in the appellant's labor agreement.

The State's Labor Board, with a quorum administered by Chief of Court Judge Adler, decided unanimously for our client, indicating that "due to a lawsuit based on the legitimacy of a dismissal originated from uncovering corruption should Kupat Holim Maccabbi, as a 'public body', put what was claimed against it to a strict examination of the Labor Court, and seek no hide whatsoever behind the curtain of the procedure of arbitration. As commentated above, in a complaint regarding a dispute derived from a violation of a protected right of a worker to complain of deeds of corruption without getting harmed must the arguments in their essence be examined normatively and rigorously, evidences should be inspected and the verdict should be essentially sentenced – all within an open to the public proceeding."

Our comment after the verdict was given: "No appeal, which in its base the protected rights of workers (and which bear a public-constitutional interest), should be submitted to a tribunal of arbitration as demanded by Kupat Holim Maccabbi, only due to an abstract and awkward agreement on which the worker signed on and which bears within it a term regarding arbitration. It is only appropriate that Kupat Holim Maccabbi, 'as a public body', should show interest that these sort of cases would be conducted publicly and in a non-biased court of justice. I hope this precedent verdict should help ending the suffer of my client, who was accused, as argued, in uncovering corruption and in saying 'NO!' to her boss."

Full List