[b] Reasons for the hearing: As for the plaintiff's claim that the letter does not specify the reasons for the invitation to the hearing, the claim should be dismissed. A review of the letter summoned to the hearing reveals that it detailed two grounds for considering terminating his employment with the defendant: one was "dissatisfaction with the manner of professional conduct," and the other was "multiple absences and failure to arrive at the workplace in an orderly manner." The plaintiff read this out in his cross-examination but refused to admit that the grounds for which he was summoned to the hearing were detailed, and when he confessed, he claimed that the grounds were not detailed and even false (pp. 19-22). However, it is not necessary that the letter of summons to the hearing be supported by examples or signs and miracles, but rather it must specify the reason for the summons to the hearing so that the employee can prepare for the hearing, and such is the letter of summons to a hearing in our case. It should be noted here that if the plaintiff believed that the grounds were not detailed or, God forbid, false, he could have argued this before or during the hearing, and even asked for more details, but the plaintiff informed the defendant that he was waiving the hearing and that the decision to terminate his employment could already be made (p. 28, line 17). He even admitted that he did not ask for any details (p. 30, lines 9-12). Thus, the plaintiff did not complain about the content of the summons to the hearing in real time and raised his claims for the first time in the statement of claim (p. 23, lines 1-6). However, the court is not a substitute for the good faith upholding of the right to a hearing.
[c] Transcript: According to the plaintiff, the minutes of the hearing do not reflect what was exchanged during the hearing. At the outset, it should be noted that the minutes of the hearing are intended to reflect the main points of what was said in it, and it should not be a transcript of the meeting. As we determined above, the defendant's attempt to hold a hearing for the plaintiff was unsuccessful, because the plaintiff cooperated only partially. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the minutes do not mention anything except the reasons for the summons to the hearing and the plaintiff's response is "perfectly fine". As stated, the plaintiff himself clarified that he had waived raising arguments at the hearing, thus contradicting his claim that the minutes did not reflect what was said. Moreover, during his cross-examination, he was unable to explain what was missing in the transcript, and in the end he was even forced to admit that it reflected what was said (p. 28, line 33, p. 29).