Table Of ContentFADING CORPORATISM
Fading
Corporatism
Israel’s Labor Law
and Industrial Relations
in Transition
GUY MUNDLAK
ILR Press
an imprint of
cornell university press
ithaca and london
Copyright © 2007 by Cornell University
All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review,
this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form
without permission in writing from the publisher. For
information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512
East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850.
First published 2007 by Cornell University Press
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Mundlak, Gai.
Fading corporatism : Israel’s labor law and industrial relations in transition / Guy
Mundlak.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8014-4600-9 (cloth : alk. paper)
1. Labor laws and legislation—Israel. 2. Industrial relations—Israel. 3. Corporate state—
Israel. I. Title.
KMK1220.M86 2007
344.569401—dc22
2007018958
Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally responsi-
ble suppliers and materials to the fullest extent possible in the
publishing of its books. Such materials include vegetable-based,
low-VOC inks and acid-free papers that are recycled, totally
chlorine-free, or partly composed of nonwood fibers. For further
information, visit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu.
Cloth printing 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To Yaffa and Yair
Contents
Preface ix
Acknowledgments xiii
Introduction: Labor Law in Transition—Between Law
and Industrial Relations 1
Part I Corporatism
1 Corporatism: Theory and Institutional Design 13
2 The Israeli Variant of Corporatism 34
Part II Constructing Corporatist Labor Law, 1920–1987
3 Legislating for Corporatism, 1920–1968 61
4 Adjudication in the Service of Corporatism, 1969–1987 89
Part III Fading Corporatism
5 The Changing Metafunction of Labor Law 119
6 The Juridification of the Employment Relationship 153
7 The Changing Legal Construct of Dualism 188
Part IV Corporatist Labor Law in Context
8 Corporatist and Pluralist Labor Laws 227
9 The Rule and Role of Law in Industrial Relations 241
References 261
Index 277
Preface
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. How-
ever, 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 devel-
oped on the basis of continental European systems and is now adopting fea-
tures 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 consis-
tent 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 rea-
sons 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
ix
x Preface
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 He-
brew 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 rele-
vant 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 lit-
igated (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 in-
formation 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 33/3-
25 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 ap-
pealing to the Court is the workers’ committee in EL-Al, while the respondent
is an individual worker; the case was published in the formal publication of
Labor Court cases, in volume 4, on page 365.
The final matter of terminology relates to the Histadrut. The General His-
tadrut designates the largest trade union and the central institution in Israeli
industrial relations. A possible point of confusion for the readers is that there
