The High Court of Justice on Monday said that the laws
prohibiting employment of Jews on Shabbos do not contradict
the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation because the law is in
keeping with "the general values of the State of Israel as a
Jewish state."
"We accept that the Hours of Work and Rest Law, as it relates
to weekly rest hours, causes injury to the freedom of
occupation of employers and employees," wrote High Court
President Aharon Barak. "[However,] this injury does not
render the law unconstitutional, because . . . it is in
keeping with the values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic
state. It was legislated for a worthy reason, that is for
achieving social welfare goals that are realized
simultaneously with fulfilling national-religious
considerations. [Furthermore,] the harm to freedom of
occupation caused by the law is not excessive." Justices
Miriam Naor and Ayala Procaccia backed Barak's decision.
The case was brought by a furniture store chain and 18 of its
employees asking it to declare the law prohibiting Jews to
work on Shabbos unconstitutional.
The petition marked the first time that the law prohibiting
work by Jews on Shabbos was tested against the Basic Law:
Freedom of Occupation. That basic law came into effect in
1992, but a temporary law declared that any law that
contradicted the basic law but had been legislated before it
continued to be valid. The temporary law expired in 2002,
opening up the possibility of challenging any law on the
statute book that contradicted a basic law. The petition
against the Work and Rest Hours Law was filed two years
later.
The petition was submitted last year by Design 22, a
furniture store with branches in various parts of the
country. The branches employ Jews and are open on Shabbos.
The company was assessed with various fines for breaking the
Hours of Work and Rest Law, which prohibits work on Shabbos
except in special cases, such as national security or
factories which cannot interrupt production.
The furniture company applied for a permit to employ Jews on
Shabbos but was turned down.
According to the so-called "limitation" clause of the Basic
Law: Freedom of Occupation, a regular law may violate the
basic law if it is in keeping with the values of the country
as a Jewish and democratic state, is for a worthy purpose and
when the benefits it yields are greater than the injury it
causes to individual rights.
The Work and Rest Hours Law was legislated to grant employees
and employers at least 36 hours a week of continuous rest and
provide an opportunity for the family to spend time together,
wrote Barak. Shabbos was chosen as the day of rest in keeping
with the religious and national traditions of the Jewish
people. These elements meet the requirement of the
"limitation" clause of the basic law because they are in
keeping with the values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic
country.
The court rejected the petitioners' proposal to allow them to
choose their own day of rest. The fact that the day chosen
was Shabbos and not any other day of the week could not be
considered religious coercion, because the law did not force
observance of the day of rest in any particular way.
