Labor Dispute (Be’er Sheva) 47968-07-24 Noya Dimri as Jamil Matalka - part 4

(page 65, lines 32-33).

48. In addition, the parties do not dispute that the defendant summoned the police to his office. A video describing a police officer's visit to the scene was even submitted to the file.
49. The plaintiff, for her part, did not deny that she told the policeman, "He knows that he is dealing with the wrong person." During her interrogation, she explained that her sister works as a police investigator and therefore said what she said (page 30, lines 15-27).
50. The plaintiff also confirmed in her interrogation that the policeman told her not to come to work the next day (page 31, lines 9-11).
51. Eventually, the plaintiff went home.
52. Later that evening, the plaintiff's husband arrived at the defendant's office. During his interrogation, the plaintiff's husband testified that he came to the defendant's office and went into his room to talk to him.  According to him, "There was a bit of an argument between us" (page 36, lines 21-28) and "I spoke badly" (ibid., line 34).
53. In any event, the plaintiff did not present an orderly version regarding the receipt of the dismissal letter. We noted above that the plaintiff did not object when on February 19, 2024, the defendant gave her a dismissal letter.  However, the plaintiff's husband testified that he came to the defendant's office later that day in order to take the dismissal letter (page 34, lines 22-24).  He then said that the defendant sent the letter through the plaintiff's sister (page 35, lines 1-3).  It should be noted that this version did not appear at all in his affidavit.
54. Either way, the plaintiff's husband confirmed in his interrogation that the plaintiff had been fired, and only the next day did she tell the defendant that she was pregnant:

"That he told her in the conversation I'm going to fire you and you'll work in black, and then I told her the day after tell him you can't, that's the whole story."

(page 36, lines 5-8).

• Discussion and Decision

55. We have brought above the factual basis as it emerges from the evidence that was laid out before us. We will now turn to discuss the components of the claim, in their order.

C.1.  Compensation for Lack of Notice to the Employee

56. The plaintiff claims that the notice to the employee was attached to the defendant's evidence late and that she did not sign the same document, so her signature was forged. The burden of proof to prove that the signature was not forged is on the person submitting the document, i.e., on the defendant.
57. The defendant claims that he attached to his affidavits a notice to the employee signed by the plaintiff, which includes the essential details of her employment.  The plaintiff did not attach an opinion to support her claim that her signature was forged, and a comparison between the plaintiff's signature on the form is very similar to her signature on the complaint she filed with the police.
58. The law of the component of a claim is to be dismissed once the plaintiff has not met the burden of proving her claim, and we will explain. The plaintiff was asked in her interrogation about her signature on the notice form to the employee.  When she was presented with a signature and asked if it was her signature, she replied: "It depends, it depends on what you are talking about" (page 32, lines 9-23).  This answer is unreliable and Anna allows us to trust the plaintiff's version.
59. Ultimately, the defendant pointed out that the plaintiff's signature on the notice to employee form was similar to her signature on a copy of her complaint to the police (paragraph 39 of the defendant's summaries).
60. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff did not prove her claim that she was not given notice to the employee.
61. Therefore, the claim for compensation for failure to give notice to the employee is dismissed.

C.2.  Compensation for Failure to Conduct a Lawful Hearing

62. The plaintiff claims that the hearing was held in a disgraceful manner and that the plaintiff sat helpless when she asked for an explanation of the conversation and did not receive one. The plaintiff left the conversation with no understanding and without a hearing transcript.  According to her, it is clear that the defendant did not fulfill the duty of the hearing.
63. The defendant claims that the hearing held on February 19, 2024, cannot be separated from the events of the three months preceding it. There is no dispute that the employees of the defendant's office went on unpaid leave in light of the war and that the defendant was not interested in employing the plaintiff.  The plaintiff retracted her unpaid leave on her own accord and took the law into her own hands.  She was aware of the situation and the right to a hearing was substantially exhausted.
64. As to our decision, we are of the opinion that the defendant did indeed meet the burden of proving that he was not interested in continuing the plaintiff's employment for reasons of a decrease in the scope of work in the firm. This is clearly stated in the transcript of the first conversation of February 19, 2024 and is not controversial.
65. There is still no dispute that the defendant made it clear to the plaintiff, to her question, that this was a hearing and that the plaintiff's attempt to claim otherwise was hidden in her cross-examination.
66. In addition, the plaintiff's claims that she "sat helpless" are hidden from the very fact of watching the video and reading the transcript. Even in her cross-examination, the plaintiff did not act like a "helpless" person at all.  The exact opposite is true.
67. In fact, a reading of the transcript of the first meeting of February 19, 2024 reveals that after the defendant presents the reasons for his intention to terminate the plaintiff's employment, a dialogue develops between the two in which various alternatives were proposed for the plaintiff's dismissal, and we are not under the impression that the plaintiff expressed opposition to the remarks in real time. At the same time, there is no dispute that the summons to the hearing was given at the time of the hearing and that the dismissal letter was delivered on the same day.
68. According to the case law, not every defect in the hearing justifies a compensation award, and this depends on the circumstances of each case. In any case, the examination of the hearing process is substantive and not procedural:

"According to the case law, a defect in the hearing is not necessarily obligated to lead to the granting of monetary compensation to the employee, and the type and extent of the relief depends on the circumstances of each case (Labor Appeal (National) 11260-10-13 Formica Averbuch Center in Tax Appeal v.  Farber Gali, [published in Nevo] of November 14, 2016).  In this context, it was ruled that it is necessary to examine whether the employee was in fact given the opportunity to defend himself against the dismissal process and to understand the arguments raised against him by the employer, in a manner that enables him to present his answers before a decision is made in his case."