In the light of current events, there appears to be a consensus on the question of equality between men and women with regard to talent or ability. However, the Ministry of Trade and Industry has delivered a clear message against Israeli legislation: Do not hire women or at least no women who might get pregnant! Why? Because employing women at risk of becoming pregnant would potentially mean bankruptcy of the companies that hire them.
The Israeli legislator banned dozens of years ago from dismissal of a worker during her pregnancy, during and after the maternity leave for a period of 60 days* (including non-renewal of the employment contract that ended). In order to dismiss a pregnant woman, a special permit is required from a party called "the supervisor of the Women's Labor Law Unit in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor." Prior to the decision to dismiss a female employee, an investigation is carried out, the taking of testimonies and the gathering of evidence, and even a hearing for the parties, all in order to ensure that the dismissal of the pregnant woman is permitted only when they are not connected to pregnancy*. Only after the General Director's decision can it be appealed to the Labor Court (which may issue a temporary injunction preventing dismissal) and only after a ruling can appeal to the National Labor Court. In extreme cases, the worker may eventually be fired for the Bar Mitzvah of the newborn.
A client of our firm wanted to dismiss a senior manager for a while because he was not satisfied with her job. To this end, the employer summoned his employee to a hearing during which he did not inform her that he was planning to dismiss her. After receiving the notification, the worker reported to the employer that she was pregnant and therefore could not be dismissed. The employer hastened to make a detailed request in March to dismiss the worker. In mid-May, the employer was summoned for a hearing, but the months were over and no decision had yet been made. Our many requests to speed up the proceedings were answered with sincere apology - it turns out that the unit employs a small staff that handles hundreds of layoffs requests a year.
When we explained to the supervisor that for some four months the worker did nothing but physically get to work (and still) without continuing to carry out the tasks related to her position, she looked up to heaven and replied that they were receiving every month dozens of new requests about pregnant women who were no longer working until a decision was made on them. It took more than four months since the beginning of the procedure for the Ministry of Trade and Industry to authorize the dismissal of the employee and at this stage there was nothing left but to pay the worker for another month's wages (as required by law) and hope that the employee will not rush to the Labor Court. This litigation cost the client approximately 150,000 NIS, not including the costs of the procedure and the consequences of the non-replacement of the employee who stopped working for a significant period - a decent amount that could easily cause a small business to collapse.
Although protection of pregnant women is important, protection of employers is at least as important as if the company collapse, the employer will no longer be in a position to assist any employee, Economy as such. The current legal situation (due in particular to the lack of manpower handling the issue) conveys a message contrary to the original aim of the legislator by discouraging employers from hiring women in view of the difficulties related to their dismissal.
In my opinion, there is only one way to deal with the problem without compromising the equality of opportunity for women and without harming employers, to set a short date (for example, 30 days) during which the employer could freely decide to dismiss her employee as in the context of the approval of mergers by the Antitrust Authority. In addition, it is appropriate to significantly increase the standards in the Ministry of Trade and Industry's supervisor of women's work in such a way as to permit prompt and efficient handling of applications.
* The Employment of Women Law (1954) and the Equal Employment Opportunities Law (1988).
* Supreme Court 7000/08 Henrietta Levi v. Minister of Defense