To:
Mr. Arik Feldman
Egged Chairman
Re: The detention and searching of an Egged bus driver
We read with great concern the story that was recently published in the Haaretz newspaper, which detailed the actions of the Egged bus company’s internal investigative personnel, who allegedly pulled an Egged bus driver from the bus he was driving, in full view of his passengers, informed him that he was being “detained” and searched his equipment. The report also claimed that the man was detained against his will, cross-examined, and that the testimony recorded in his name was a result of pressure he was subjected to. The newspaper claims that this was carried out without any formal recognition or the man’s legal rights.
No less disturbing is the reaction of the Egged spokesperson, who was quoted as saying that, “anyone who joins Egged is a signatory to regulations that make it clear that he is a member of a company that is a state within a state, and that these are its procedures. We have 6,000 drivers, a small kernel of which commit crimes. If we do not act against this kernel the service and our business interests will suffer.”
Every individual in Israel is entitled to the right to liberty, dignity and privacy. These rights are protected as basic legal rights and cannot be violated unless it is legally sanctioned, and even then the violation must be proportionate. Accordingly, the state law enforcement agencies, primarily the police, were provided with the necessary powers to carry out these duties, such as the authority to arrest, detain and carry out searches. However, even this is subject to stringent and meticulous conditions. Any abuse of these powers or their transference to alternative bodies that have not been authorized to enforce them, constitutes a violation of penal prohibitions, or at the very least the execution of a civil wrong. In addition, such actions are both humiliating and violate an individual’s right to dignity, as exemplified by the reported “detention” and enforced search of a driver in full view of his passengers.
It is true that an employer has a legitimate interest in the management and promotion of his/her business, and in acting to prevent penal offences or disciplinary infractions of his employees. However, this interest is not best served by the transfer of powers to the employer that are reserved for the state. An employer is not authorized to violate the basic rights of his/her employees by virtue of a sweeping “agreement” that was imposed upon them by their employer. The cautious and dubious approach, employed by the labor laws in relation to the “waiving” of workers’ rights, is even more imperative in the case of basic rights. This approach, according to which, human rights cannot be expropriated (or are “inalienable” in the language of the UN International Bill of Human Rights), is crucial, especially in light of the inequitable balance of power between an employer and his/her employee.
One should also not expect to find any consolation in the worrying statements attributed to Egged’s spokesperson, which claimed that the company’s employees agreed to the condition of a “state within a state”. These statements give the impression that the current case under discussion is nothing more than a practical example of Egged’s long-term policy. Whatever the case may be, Egged is not a state, its employees are not its subjects, and the company has no part in the state’s monopoly of the right to use violence as a means of enforcement.
Thus, we respectfully request that you inform us of the legal basis for the actions taken against the Egged bus driver in this case.
In addition to which, we would like you to assure us that Egged does not consider itself authorized to violate the basic rights of its members through the utilization of methods of detention, searches, and interrogation that are reserved for the state.
Yours Sincerely
Adv. Avner Pinchuk
last updated : 31/01/06
