Histadrut Files Lawsuit in High Court Supporting Super Pharm Chain Employees

The Histadrut, a major trade union, has taken legal action against the verdict of the All-Israeli Labor Court. The dispute is centered around the issue of uniting workers of the Super Pharm chain into a single trade union. The Histadrut, in its lawsuit, highlighted that the court’s decision, in their perspective, was fundamentally flawed. They argued that the consequence of this verdict could lead to significant harm to the constitutional right of the Super Pharm chain’s approximately 8,500 employees to form and join trade unions.

Furthermore, the Histadrut expressed concerns about the broader implications of this verdict. They suggested that the ruling could have detrimental effects on tens of thousands of additional workers in varied industries. These workers, like those at Super Pharm, are also employed under a “multi-level” model of indirect employment, as emphasized by the trade union’s press service.

The situation came about as a result of a complex unification process. Many hundreds of pharmacists employed at the Super Pharm chain decided to join the Histadrut. These workers sought the recognition of their association and strived for improved employment conditions through the establishment of a first collective agreement. The Super Pharm chain has a vast network of approximately 290 branches spread across the country, employing these workers.

The operational model of Super Pharm is commonly referred to as a partnership model. In this model, each individual branch is established as a separate partner company. However, it is important to note that Super Pharm maintains absolute control over its partner companies in terms of economic, business, operational, and managerial aspects. The network also exercises authority over the terms of employment for its employees. This includes dictating the terms of the employment contract, the social benefits employees are entitled to, and all work procedures down to the finest detail.

The Histadrut, cognizant of the control that the Super Pharm network wields over its employees’ working conditions, submitted claims in labor courts. They demanded that the network be obligated to negotiate on regulating the working conditions of its employees within the framework of a collective agreement. However, the regional labor court declined the Histadrut’s request.

Unsatisfied with the court’s decision, the Histadrut proceeded to appeal. The All-Israel Court, during its deliberation on the appeal, supported the Histadrut’s argument that, in line with the “breach of universality” principle, an entity, even if not the direct employer, can be considered an employer for the purposes of collective agreements. This would, in turn, impose a duty on the entity to negotiate. Nonetheless, the court concluded that, given the specific circumstances of the case, the Super Pharm chain did not hold significant influence in establishing an obligation for it to negotiate collectively with the Histadrut.

In response to this decision, the Histadrut filed a lawsuit in the High Court of Justice. They contended that the labor court’s verdict was filled with fundamental errors and logical inconsistencies. They suggested that this has resulted in a miscarriage of justice that essentially deprives the network’s 8,500 employees of their right to organize.