## Facts

- Horn & Leibowitz was a private transportation company employing 217 bus drivers.
- Eighty-three drivers were members of Histadrut, a labor union.
- Histadrut sought to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement covering the drivers.
- Horn & Leibowitz refused the terms proposed by Histadrut and did not reach agreement with the union.
- In connection with the dispute over union representation and collective bargaining, Horn & Leibowitz reportedly sought written statements from many employees indicating they did not want union representation.
- After bargaining failed, 35 Histadrut-member drivers went on strike.
- Horn & Leibowitz fired the 35 striking drivers.
- Histadrut filed a collective labor-dispute case seeking reinstatement of the dismissed drivers.
- The regional labor court ruled for Histadrut and granted relief requiring the drivers’ return to work.
- Horn & Leibowitz appealed to the National Labor Court (Collective Dispute Appeal 1008/00).

## Issues

1. May an employer lawfully dismiss employees for participating in a strike connected to union organizing and collective bargaining?
2. When dismissals are tied to protected collective activity, may the labor court order reinstatement (specific performance) as a remedy in a collective dispute?
3. Does employer conduct aimed at defeating union representation (including obtaining employee statements opposing representation) support collective relief against dismissals of strikers?

## Decision

- The National Labor Court heard the employer’s collective dispute appeal from the regional labor court’s ruling in favor of Histadrut.
- The court affirmed the judgment for Histadrut.
- The court held that the dismissals of the 35 union-member drivers for strike participation in the context of a collective-bargaining dispute were unlawful.
- The court upheld reinstatement as an appropriate remedy in these circumstances, rather than limiting relief to monetary compensation.

## Legal Principles

- Employees’ freedom of association and the right to take collective action (including strikes tied to collective bargaining) receive strong protection in Israeli labor law.
- An employer may not dismiss employees as retaliation for participation in protected strike activity connected to union representation or bargaining.
- Where dismissals are used to weaken or defeat a unionization effort, labor courts may grant collective remedies that effectively restore the status quo, including reinstatement.
- Although courts are often cautious about ordering continued employment as a remedy, reinstatement may be ordered when necessary to give meaningful protection to collective labor rights.
- Employer actions that interfere with employees’ choice of representation may be considered when assessing the legality of dismissals and the need for collective relief.

## Conclusion

Horn & Leibowitz v. Histadrut arose after a private bus company refused proposed collective-bargaining terms and then fired 35 union-member drivers who struck during the organizing and bargaining dispute; the regional labor court ordered relief in the union’s favor, and the National Labor Court affirmed, holding that retaliatory discharge of strikers in this context was unlawful and that reinstatement was an available and proper remedy in a collective dispute.


Horn & Leibowitz v. Histadrut, Collective Dispute Appeal 1008/00, 35 PDL 145 (2000)