...
Here it is, this is the letter summons to the hearing. Take it for you, it's for me... Listen, what I want is something like this, at the time.
...
You understand now, following unpaid leave and the state of the war, and here and there we went on unpaid leave, and the truth is that it is not possible to employ such a manpower and that the work has actually decreased. Okay. That's why I put you on unpaid leave. Today I'm continuing with it because I need a lot less manpower. I have an age that is in the reserves, I also have that I finished with other employees, I can't continue because I want to be less. That's why I also inform both Revital and Zohar that I can't continue."
See pages 23-24 of the transcript of the conversation of February 19, 2024 (Appendix 2 to the defendant's affidavits).
- The plaintiff asks the defendant what the meaning of the conversation is: "So I didn't understand, is it a hearing or a dismissal letter?" and the defendant replies: "This is a hearing, not a dismissal letter. I'll give you a letter, no problem.(See ibid., pp. 24-25 of the defendant's affidavits).
- It should be noted that the transcript contradicts the plaintiff's affidavit, in which it is stated that "I was not told at any stage that a hearing was held for me" (paragraph 19 of the affidavit). In her interrogation, the plaintiff admitted that the defendant told her that the meeting on February 19, 2024 was a hearing (page 13, lines 9-11, 14). According to her, she wrote what was stated in the affidavit because, according to her, it was not a hearing.
- With regard to the letter of summons to the hearing (Appendix 7 to the defendant's affidavit), the defendant confirmed in his interrogation that it was given to the plaintiff at the hearing (page 44, lines 7-9), but insisted that the plaintiff knew in advance that she was coming to the hearing. The defendant also stated that the plaintiff knew that she was supposed to be fired (page 43, lines 18-20).
- The plaintiff, for her part, claimed in her interrogation that the letter given to her at the meeting on February 19, 2024 was not a summons to a hearing, but rather a dismissal decision (page 15, lines 33-39). Afterwards, she retracted her statement and said that she did not know what was written on the page that was given to her (page 16, lines 18-21).
- In this context, the defendant insisted that the plaintiff received a copy of the letter summoned to the hearing, but left it in his office (page 48, lines 1-4).
- In any event, a perusal of the transcript of the conversation reveals that the two discussed the possibility that the plaintiff would continue to work for the defendant. This is after the defendant asks the plaintiff whether, if she receives a dismissal letter, she will be entitled to unemployment benefits, and she responds in the negative. At the end of the conversation, the defendant says to the plaintiff: "So give it to me, give me just five minutes and I'll either say here's a dismissal letter or bring you a work plan. Give me five minutes. I'm checking something and that's it.(ibid., p. 28 of the defendant's affidavits).
B.4. The second meeting from February 19, 2024
- Later that day, another conversation takes place, during which the defendant gives the plaintiff a dismissal letter: "That's it, that's the dismissal letter, okay. You want to talk to me, we'll talk to you and I, okay. You're in a hurry, you're leaving, tomorrow is coming, workers." (page 29 of the defendant's affidavits).
- The plaintiff does not object: "Will we talk about it tomorrow, about the dismissal letter?" The conversation ends with the plaintiff telling the defendant: "... Talk to you. Okay, because I'm in a hurry for my kids now."
- In other words, it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that after the defendant gave her a dismissal letter (to which she did not express any objection or protest), they would speak the next day.
- This is the place to note that according to the plaintiff's version, at that time she already knew she was pregnant (since she claimed that she had conducted a home test on February 13, 2024). Despite this, she did not object to the fact that she was given a dismissal letter and did not tell the defendant, even by hinting, a thing and a half about her pregnancy.
- In addition, in her cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted for the first time that on February 19, 2024, there were two meetings between her and the defendant (page 17, lines 16-26). When she was asked why in the affidavit she did not mention the second meeting on February 19, 2024, the plaintiff claimed that she had forgotten (page 17, line 35 to page 18, line 4).
B.5. The meeting from February 20, 2024
- The next day, on February 20, 2024, the two spoke again as they had spoken to do. The defendant asked the plaintiff: "What did you think? What did you decide?" and the plaintiff responds: "... Because I can't accept that for one reason... Because I'm pregnant."
- The defendant, for his part, is very surprised and notes that he did not know about it beforehand: "What? So... But you didn't tell me that, so I'll give. When pregnant I can't."
- In this context, it should be noted that according to the plaintiff's version (which in this context also came up for the first time only in an affidavit, paragraphs 19-20 of the affidavit), the defendant offered her to work "in black", and she refused this offer.
- However, the plaintiff confirmed in her interrogation that by saying " I can't accept this" she was referring to the dismissal letter (page 21, lines 16-18).
- The plaintiff notes that when she found out she was pregnant, she contacted the Ministry of Labor and was told that it is forbidden to fire a pregnant employee even if she is on unpaid leave (page 32 of the defendant's affidavits, lines 6, 13). The defendant asks when it was and the plaintiff searches the phone and says, "No, I can't find the details.She then says that it was when she met with the defendant together with her mother (page 33 of the defendant's affidavits, lines 13-14), but afterwards, to the defendant's question, she states that she did not know at the time that she was pregnant (ibid., line 18).
- This is the place to note that in her interrogation, the plaintiff was asked about the email message that she claimed showed the response of the Ministry of Labor. The plaintiff noted that she showed the defendant the message on her phone, but did not present it at the hearing because "my emails are deleted all the time." (page 11, lines 6-8).
- The plaintiff was asked when she contacted the Ministry of Labor and did not know how to specify a date (page 4, lines 1-5, and also lines 27-28). She then said that she checked her rights with the Ministry of Labor when she learned that she was pregnant, on February 13, 2024 (page 7, lines 1-11).
- 00In any event, in the continuation of her interrogation, the plaintiff confirmed that at the time of the conversation of February 20, 2024, she did not have confirmation that she was pregnant (page 25, line 21).
- Later in the conversation, the defendant accuses the plaintiff of hiding her pregnancy from him: "Second, now I didn't know you were pregnant, I'm telling you now that you received a dismissal letter, I want to help you and you're abusing it." (Page 36 of the defendant's affidavit, lines 1-2).
- The defendant instructs the plaintiff to go home: "Go home. I don't occupy you anymore.and the plaintiff responds: "There is no such thing. There is no such thing as sorry to tell you... I'm here and according to my hours you'll pay...(page 36 of the defendant's affidavit, lines 13-17).
- The defendant confirmed in his interrogation that he did not believe the plaintiff (page 54, line 32) and that if he had believed her, he would not have fired her (page 55, lines 33-38). The defendant also said that he felt that the plaintiff was trying to deceive him (page 57, line 35 to page 58, line 2).
B.6. The argument between the plaintiff and the defendant and the arrival of the police
- There is no dispute between the parties that at this stage, an unpleasant exchange between the plaintiff and the defendant began. Thus, the plaintiff confirmed in her interrogation that she had told the defendant: "If you want evil, I will go with you in evil" (page 30, lines 4-6).
- There is still no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff sat in her place and refused to go. In this context, Attorney Shimon Nachmani, who is employed by the defendant, testified that the plaintiff defiantly sat in her place, in front of the firm's clients, and shouted "in a simply humiliating manner" (page 63, lines 24-26). According to him:
"And she shouted at him, yes? When he was in the room, who are you anyway? Who are you anyway? She shouted at him, I'm not like all your girls here, like that, with a raise of hands."