In a letter to the Chief Commander of the Police, Attorney
Menachem Chachmon accuses the Police Department of refusing
to reinstate Officer Chezi Elmasi. Elmasi was fired from his
job because of his unwillingness to desecrate Shabbos. The
Police Department refused despite the fact that the High
Court issued an order to reinstate Elmasi provisionally until
the end of deliberations on his appeal filed by Chachmon in
which the latter described the entire chain of events that
led to the firing of the officer.
As a result of the High Court decision Elmasi was technically
reinstated, but told to remain at home on paid vacation. He
was not restored to his former position as officer in the
patrol unit in Beersheba. Chachmon wrote to the Chief
Commander of the Police about the issue.
Attorney Rona Kedmi replied for the police department that in
the request for a court order, as drafted in the appeal, the
issue of his return to work and his specific job posting were
separated; therefore the implementation of the order is
justified. Kedmi said that the order given by the High Court
refers to his return to the police department, while his job-
posting received no legal support. "Return to work can be
done in various forms, including paid vacation, which is,
indeed, the case with your client. The Police Department has
thus fulfilled its obligation as stated in the court
order."
Chachmon sent a very sharp letter in rebuttal, in which he
said that he is upset over the manner in which the Police
interpreted the High Court decision. He notes that such
interpretation is unreasonable since the order instructed the
Chief Commander and the Internal Affairs Minister to return
the petitioner to his work, and that the meaning of the order
is clear and simple. Chachmon adds that attempts by the
Police and the Chief Commander to claim that these phrases do
not mean actively returning Elmasi to work contradict the
spirit and letter of the High Court decision. "In any event,"
he adds, "they certainly show a lack of integrity as well as
unacceptable behavior."
Chachmon said that police officers deserve paid annual
vacations but these are always coordinated with the policeman
in question. In this case, Elmasi was not sent on his annual
vacation but was told to remain at home without work and he
will be paid as if he were actually working. "Paid vacation
at the expense of the employer outside of the framework of
annual vacation is not considered a `return to work.' It is,
rather, an illegal layoff of a worker, especially in light of
the fact that the Supreme Court ordered the Police Department
to reinstate him."
Chachmon wrote a additional letter, in which he demanded to
know who actually decided not to actively employ Elmasi, what
were that person's considerations, and from where he derives
the authority to keep a policeman in his home.
