The Nokia case: ‘genuine collective purpose’ and the future of enterprise-based representation

Moria Tam-Harshoshanim

Herzog Fox & Neeman, Tel Aviv

tam@herzoglaw.co.il

On 10 June 2025, the National Labour Court issued a ruling in the matter of The New General Federation of Labour (Histadrut) – Nokia R&D and Marketing Employees’ Union (the Nokia case).[1]

The National Labour Court’s decision in the Nokia case offers a particularly compelling lens through which to examine one of the most contested questions in contemporary labour law: what qualifies as a legitimate workers’ organisation? At the heart of the ruling lies not only a doctrinal analysis, but a deeper inquiry into the nature of collective representation itself, especially where the organising initiative takes the form of an internal, independent, enterprise-based committee rather than a traditional cross-sector trade union.

The factual background reflects this tension in a concrete and nuanced way. Nokia Israel employed approximately 140 to 150 employees at the time relevant to the case. In late 2023, against the backdrop of organisational developments and concerns among employees, an initial effort was launched by employees to organise under the General Histadrut, the largest employees’ organisation in Israel. As part of this effort, dozens of employees signed membership forms expressing their support for such representation. Shortly thereafter, a separate group of employees who were opposed to external unionisation began to organise independently within the workplace. They established an internal committee which sought to represent employees at the enterprise level, and presented this as an alternative to joining a large, cross-sector organisation.

This internal organisation actively recruited employees and gained the support of a significant portion of the workforce. The committee approached management and positioned itself as the representative employee body. The employer engaged with this body, which intensified the dispute with the Histadrut. The Histadrut argued that the internal committee could not be recognised as a ‘workers’ organisation’ under Israeli law and therefore could not compete for representative status. The Regional Labour Court rejected this argument and adopted a relatively flexible approach, placing weight on the authenticity of the employees’ initiative and their desire to create an independent framework of representation. It held that despite certain defects in the process of organisation and recruitment, the internal body qualified as a workers’ organisation. The Histadrut appealed this determination to the National Labour Court.

The National Labour Court reversed the lower court’s ruling and held that the internal organisation does not meet the legal requirements for recognition. It reached this conclusion through a structured analysis of the criteria developed in Israeli case law for identifying a workers’ organisation. These criteria are intended to ensure that an entity seeking recognition is capable of fulfilling the role assigned to a trade union within the system of collective labour relations.

Central to the Court’s reasoning was the requirement of a genuine collective purpose. The Court treated this requirement as a necessary condition for recognition, and emphasised that it must be assessed based on the organisation’s actual design, governing documents, and mode of operation. It is not enough for an organisation to declare that it represents employees collectively. The question is whether, in substance, it is structured to regulate employment conditions through collective bargaining in a meaningful way.

In the Nokia case, the defining feature of the internal organisation was its commitment to upholding individual employment agreements as the primary source of rights and obligations. Collective activity was not entirely excluded, but it was intentionally limited to matters not already governed by personal contracts. The Court found that this model does not satisfy the requirement of a genuine collective purpose. In the Court’s view, a workers’ organisation must aspire to play a central and substantive role in shaping employment conditions through collective means. A framework in which collective engagement is merely residual does not meet this threshold.

This conclusion reflects a traditional understanding of trade unions as institutions that meaningfully displace individualised bargaining and replace it with collective regulation. At the same time, the Nokia case illustrates why this understanding is increasingly being tested. In many modern workplaces, particularly those made up of highly skilled employees with differentiated terms of employment, there is a growing interest in hybrid models that seek to uphold individual autonomy while introducing elements of collective coordination.

The internal organisation at Nokia can be seen as an attempt to give institutional form to such a hybrid model. It did not deny the importance of collective action, but sought to limit its scope and integrate it alongside existing individual arrangements. The Court’s rejection of this model therefore raises broader and still unsettled questions:

• Does the establishment of an internal committee inherently raise concerns of employer influence, even where such influence is not clearly demonstrated?
• Must a workers’ organisation fully embrace collective bargaining as the dominant mode of regulation in order to be recognised?
• Is there room within the legal framework for an enterprise-based organisation whose members prefer not to be subsumed within the broader structure and priorities of a cross-sector union?

At the same time, the Court’s insistence on a robust collective purpose serves an important protective function. The requirement is designed to ensure that organisations granted legal recognition are capable of acting as genuine representatives of employees and as effective counterparts in collective bargaining. It reflects a concern that without such a requirement, the legal framework could accommodate bodies which lack the capacity or the intention to engage in meaningful collective representation.

The challenge, however, lies in distinguishing between organisations that represent a legitimate evolution in employee preferences and those that undermine the foundations of collective labour relations. The Nokia case sits precisely at this boundary. The internal organisation was not dismissed because it lacked support or authenticity, but because its conception of collective action was considered too limited to satisfy the legal standard.

This is what makes the discussion of genuine collective purpose particularly significant today. It is not merely a technical legal requirement, but a concept that captures a broader debate about the future of worker representation. As labour markets evolve and employment relationships become more individualised, the traditional model of collective bargaining is no longer the only conceivable form of representation. The question is whether the law should adapt to these developments or continue to anchor recognition in a more traditional conception of union activity.

In our view, the answer is far from self-evident. The ruling in the Nokia case does not resolve these tensions, but it brings them into sharp focus. By confronting an enterprise-based model of organisation and rejecting it on doctrinal grounds, the Court has created a timely opportunity to re-examine some of the foundational assumptions of collective labour relations in Israel.