The National Labor Court accepted the appeal of Rabbi Benjamin Cooperman, rabbi of the Ramat Gan Religious Council, and ordered his reinstatement to work and payment of the salary he had not been paid since his dismissal.
The court thus accepted the position of the Histadrut, which supported the employee and submitted a standing motion in the proceeding, according to which the Labor Constitution for local authority employees applies to an employee of a religious council even if the council signed the employee to a personal contract.
It was further determined that defects in the manner of appointment of an employee do not prevent the application of the Labor Constitution, and that defects in the standards and manner of employment do not lie at the employee's door and do not justify automatic dismissal.
Rabbi Cooperman will be represented by Attorney Shlomo Bechor.
Rabbi Cooperman, a Chabad follower, had been employed by the Ramat Gan Religious Council since 1991, and his position was defined as spiritual absorption of new immigrants following the great immigration from Russia. He was employed on a special contract for a period of one year, which was renewed annually until 2007, but he continued to be employed thereafter.
In practice, at a certain point, new immigrants stopped coming to the city, and since then, he claims, he has served as a neighborhood rabbi.
In 2017, after about 27 years of work, Rabbi Kupperman was summoned to a hearing in which it was alleged that the council was considering terminating his employment in light of criticism from the Treasury and the lack of standards. The decision on the dismissal detailed various reasons for terminating his employment.
Rabbi Cooperman filed a lawsuit with the Labor Court and requested a temporary injunction against his dismissal taking effect.
The Regional Labor Court dismissed the claim and ordered Rabbi Kupperman to pay expenses, while determining that the council is a budgeted body subject to Section 29 of the Budget Foundations Law, that neighborhood rabbis are appointed through a special procedure stipulated in the Director General's circulars and that requires the approval of a standard, which was not met in his case.
The regional court ruled that the rabbi was appointed not in accordance with the appointment procedures and signed a personal contract, and therefore the religious council was not required to contact a private committee in accordance with the Labor Code, prior to his dismissal.
Rabbi Cooperman filed an appeal with the National Labor Court, and the state, the Histadrut, and the local government center were included in the process.
The National Court ruled that the appellant's dismissal contained a series of defects detailed in the ruling, which relate to the fact that the reason for the dismissal was not clarified, that the council changed its versions on this matter time and again; that the hearing and the dismissal decision were specific about reasons for dismissal that were not mentioned in the letter summoning the hearing.
Alongside this are the appellant's long period of employment and the distinct public nature of the council.
The National Court further ruled that even if the appellant was accepted into a position "without a standard", which was not proven, standard is determined by "flesh and blood people" after exercising discretion and is not a decree of fate. Therefore, the Council had to examine options for standard employment and exercise discretion, and it was not entitled to rely on this to justify the indiscriminate dismissal of the employee.
The court noted that even if it were to assume that the appellant was hired by the council in violation of the law that prevailed at the relevant time, it is highly doubtful whether, after 30 years of work, the employer, who is primarily responsible for the manner in which the appellant was hired, is permitted to rely on his own negligence in order to terminate the employment of a veteran employee after decades of work, without resorting to the dismissal procedures stipulated by law and collective agreements.
It was further ruled that the Regional Court erred when it determined that the Labor Constitution did not apply to the appellant on the grounds that he was appointed not in accordance with the appointment procedures and had even signed personal agreements.
It was ruled that the labor constitution for local authority employees applies as a general rule, by virtue of collective agreements that adopted it, also to employees of the Religious Council, and accordingly should also apply to the appellant regardless of his position, as he is an employee of the Council.
The court clarified that it found no merit in the regional court's determination that the Labor Constitution does not apply to someone who was hired "not in accordance with the methods of appointment," and that there was no hint of this in the language of the Labor Constitution, in the language of the collective agreements that adopt it, or in settled case law. The court further rejected the regional court's determination that the Labor Constitution does not apply to someone who signed a personal agreement, and it was clarified that this was true only to the extent that the Labor Constitution expressly stated so in accordance with its provisions.
As stated, the court accepted the appeal, ruled that the dismissal was null and void, and ordered the rabbi to be immediately reinstated to his job, with payment of wages from the date his dismissal took effect, as well as expenses in his favor in the amount of 20,000 shekels.
Join the Haredim 10 Facebook page >>
Join the X page of Haredim 10 >>
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
