meet the uniform criteria set for the purpose of receiving the supplement, their claim should be rejected; 2. Moreover, it has been proven to us that with the outbreak of the intifada and its intensification, there has been a change in the security circumstances in the work of the prison guards on the other side of the Green Line, both in the danger to which the prison guard is exposed on the way to the prison and when leaving it home, since the road was a point of danger in light of the phenomenon of stone-throwing and Molotov cocktails, etc., on the transportation of the guards, and in the danger to which the guard was exposed when he came into contact with the population beyond the Green Line. It should be noted that only at the time of the outbreak of the intifada did there be a difference between prison work in prisons within the Green Line and prison work in prisons beyond the Green Line.
- The change in the security circumstances led the then Wage Commissioner, Mr. Yaakov Danon, to order, by virtue of his authority and within the framework of the law, the payment of the supplement to prison guards serving in prisons beyond the Green Line, on condition that they undergo, due to the new security circumstances, periodic training on special behavior for those serving in the Occupied Territories beyond the Green Line.
- The claim of the plaintiffs, who are discriminated against by the police as far as the date of the payment of the supplement, should be rejected for the following reasons:
- a) A review of Government Resolution S/ 33 shows that a comparison was made between the salaries of police officers and the IPS with the salary customary in the IDF, and there is no provision regarding the comparison of the salary in the IPS with that of the police; b) It has been proven, and we have also determined factually so, that there is a material difference between the work of the prisoners in the prisons beyond the Green Line and the work of the police officer beyond the Green Line, and therefore, in light of the uniform criteria, as determined and expressed in B/5, there is a difference in the date of applicability of the supplement payment; c) It has been proven that not all police units received the supplement in effect from that date, and each unit received it in accordance with its activity and the risks to which it was exposed, and as of the date on which it met the uniform criteria set for the IDF, the police, and the IPS (Border Police and routine security personnel received the supplement in force from September 1984; the Blue Police - in effect from 1986; the administrative police personnel in effect from January 1988).
- The result, therefore, is that in law the plaintiffs were paid the supplement effective from January 1988 and therefore the claim should be dismissed.
- The plaintiffs, jointly and severally, will bear legal expenses and attorney's fees in the sum of ILS 1,250, which will be paid to the defendant within 30 days of receipt of the judgment. The aforementioned sum will not be paid