In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Preface ix This book surveys Israeli labor law from 1920 to the present. The process of writing and publishing a book does not always conform to the pace of events, particularly when the subject matter is contemporary history. The book is therefore updated until the end of 2005. References to court cases and events that began before 2005 were updated at the end of 2006. However , no developments since that time have been integrated into the text. In my opinion, no such event undermines the central argument of the book; several reinforce it. Presenting a book in English that focuses on Israel’s labor law presents many editorial dilemmas. Moreover, the book’s claim is that Israeli law developed on the basis of continental European systems and is now adopting features of American law. Hence it is difficult to determine how to translate the law and how to convey a “feel” of the Israeli story. While providing a consistent method was the most important goal, I have also attempted to keep the book as simple and user-friendly as possible. Generally, translation of legislation draws on State of Israel—Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, Labour Laws (2000)—an unofficial publication of Israeli labor legislation, translated into English. This translation is also used by the International Labor Organization (ILO) in its NATLEX database. For reasons of consistency, I have usually adhered to the terminology of the law unless I found its terms to be exceptionally undesirable (in which case it is mentioned in a footnote). Where necessary there are explanations of the terminology in footnotes. For the most part, the terms chosen are based on internationally shared perceptions about the basic elements of labor law. However, the readers must bear in mind that there are always important differences among legal systems, and thus it is important to consider the terms in their Israeli context rather than to assume that they are synonymous with similar words in other systems. The book assumes no knowledge of Hebrew, and to the extent possible it refrains from drawing on Hebrew terminology. References to literature in Hebrew are marked accordingly in the list of references, but the titles have been translated into English. The parties’ names in court cases are also translated, particularly when it is assumed that a translation may help the reader in, for example, identifying which side is the employer and which the worker, or when the party is a trade union rather than an individual. Citations of statutes are made by reference to the law’s name and year of legislation. When necessary, the year in which the law was amended is also mentioned. Debates in the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament) are referred to by citing The Knesset Protocols, followed by the common abbreviation D.K. Where relevant there is also a reference to the MK (Member of Knesset) whose speech is cited. Citation of cases designates the particular court in which the case was litigated (for example—National Labor Court, Supreme Court, or Tel Aviv District Labor Court), the case number, the parties, and if published in an of- ficial publication—PDI (Supreme Court cases) or PDA (Labor Court cases). If the case has not been published in the official publication, the reference states “unpublished” and the year in which the decision was given. This information should suffice for those who seek to find the cases in commercial databases. The numbering of cases is of particular importance because it indicates the year in which the case was opened (rather than decided). In Supreme Court cases this is designated, for example, as 340/98 (case was opened in 1998). Unfortunately, until 1997 the Labor Court’s cases used a Hebrew numbering system. Hence a case number 30/1-4 was opened in the Hebrew year 5730, which is 1970 in the Roman calendar. From 1997, the numbering of cases uses the Roman calendar. Thus a case that is designated as 56/* was opened in 1996, only a year before a case that was numbered 97/*. It should be noted that labor law cases do not use the format of “Moses v. Mohammad” but rather “Moses—Mohammad,” to emphasize that labor relations should not be confrontational. As an example of this system, National Labor Court 33/325 Workers’ Committee of Air-Stewards in El-Al—Edna Chazin, PDA 4:365 designates a case that reached the National Labor Court in 1973; the party appealing to the Court is...

Share