The national judicial advisor would do well to study the obfuscated wording of the high court president, Ms. Chayut. It will be remembered that she invalidated a Knesset legislation a week ago. In the judicial system it is commonly argued that nullifying a law passed by the Knesset is a rare and uncommon occurrence, requiring heavyweight reasons to warrant the court's interference with a law approved and passed by such a body.
But one who read Ms. Chayut's premises in doing so, discovers that one can do so even without using the criterion of reasonableness. Just like that, simply because she thinks otherwise than do the formulators and voters of the law.
Under consideration was a law created 18 years ago, whose purpose is to prevent foreign workers from remaining in the country after their residence permits expire. In order to create an incentive for them to leave, it was decided that their pension rights and other savings be frozen in a fund, and in the event that they did not leave the country at the designated time, the government would deduct part of the sum and, in some instances, appropriate the entire sum. This law worked and many more foreign workers left at the end of their contracts.
Two labor unions working for their rights, funded from abroad, appealed to the High Court on the grounds that canceling part of these monies struck a blow at their rights of ownership. This is not a valid claim, since those workers signed a document asserting that they agreed to the condition that they must leave the country at the conclusion of their work term or surrender their rights to certain monies in escrow. Thus, it is clear that taking these funds is grounded in law and tampering with them is justified.
How the judge thought differently. "Indeed, from the moment that a monthly security was deposited in the bank for wages, they constitute his asset, but deductions, even if they be justified, constitute an offense to that foreign worker and his legal rights."
Nonetheless, Judge Solberg thought otherwise. "The foreign worker knew well, from the start, that his very entry to the country is subject to certain laws of rights and obligations. These were his entry conditions which endowed him with work and the privilege of living in this country. Thus, he began working seriously according to his contract, fully aware that if he violated the terms, the amount in his account would be deducted accordingly."
This is seemingly warranted, but what does Chayut say? "I think that the fact that foreign workers who come to Israel have assumed certain conditions related to their work and their stay in the country. It is not right to deny them, in advance, the right of power over the money accrued during their tenure of work and to interfere with that right."
Why does she think so? Does she quote any appertaining reasons anchored in law? No way! This is what the judge maintains and who dare attack her opinion!
She does not even feel obligated to justify her position or her interpretation of the law. Suffice it for her that this is what she thinks, even if those who formulated and passed the law in the Knesset thought exactly the opposite.
She is certainly entitled to her opinion, but is she entitled to impose it on the entire community when it conflicts with the opinion and legislation of the country?
