And I also suggest that you come to the hearing.
A hearing was held in favor of the employee so that the words of both parties would be heard..." (From paragraph 9 of the plaintiff's main testimony affidavit).
- On August 28, 2023, in the early afternoon, the plaintiff was summoned to Mr. Kfir Barak's room, where his brother, Ofer Barak, was also present, and they held a hearing for the plaintiff, after which the plaintiff departed. While driving from work, the plaintiff contacted Kfir Barak via WhatsApp and asked for a copy of the minutes of the hearing and a notice of termination of employment. To this we will answer "as soon as we make a decision!!!." The plaintiff, for his part, put in writing his resentment that they had "tricked" him and held a short hearing, even though he had waived it, and his version of events in relation to the words that were exchanged during the course of the hearing (appendices to Mr. Kfir Barak's affidavit).
- On August 30, 2023, the plaintiff was given a copy of the minutes of the hearing and, according to the plaintiff, also a notice of the termination of his employment, which will take effect on September 1, 2023.
- Alleged flaws in the hearing: According to the plaintiff, there were a number of flaws in his summons to the hearing. First, the details in it are insufficient because it does not mention who summoned him to the hearing, the job description of the plaintiff is not mentioned, and the summons was sent to him on the WhatsApp application. Second, the allegations in the summons to the hearing are comprehensive without elaborating on what they rely on and on their merits, they are false. The plaintiff also claims that he waived the hearing, but the defendant deceived him and caused him to appear for the hearing, which he did not plan to attend. In the end, he was not given a protocol, but only the next day he was given a protocol that was not accurate in the details.
The defendant, for her part, wondered how the plaintiff had any claims regarding the proper conduct of the hearing, which he had waived in any case, and her position was that his claim in this component should be rejected. According to her, she insisted on holding a respectful and proper hearing in order to allow the plaintiff to voice his position regarding the allegations against him. She summoned him lawfully and prepared a protocol as required. When the plaintiff was cross-examined about the flaws in the summons to the hearing, he changed versions - at first he claimed that the reasons for the summons to the hearing were not written in it, and finally he changed his version that the reasons for the hearing were not specified.
- As is well known, the purpose of the hearing is to enable the employee to present to the employer his version of the allegations raised against him in order to try to persuade the authority holder not to exercise the intention to dismiss. In the Bard case (Labor Appeal (National) 23402-09-15 Barak - Cansto in a Tax Appeal [Nevo] (February 28, 2017)) the National Court discussed the 'core components' of a hearing proceeding that fulfills its purpose, including:
"... Providing the detailed reasons for which the possibility of dismissal is being considered sufficiently in advance, so that the employee will have the opportunity to prepare for the hearing; Weighing the employee's arguments with an open and willing mind; insofar as the employee wishes to be represented in the hearing proceeding, he has the right to do so."
- After the evidentiary basis in its entirety has been laid before us, our opinion is that the 'core elements' were certainly fulfilled and even beyond the letter of the law, and that the plaintiff was lawfully dismissed.
Let us begin by saying that the defendant is correct in her argument, which arises explicitly from our determination in the factual chapter, according to which the plaintiff knowingly waived the right to a hearing. Therefore, it is not clear why he complains about her absence, especially since in the end he does have a hearing process. He did not succeed in resolving this matter in his cross-examination and even admitted that his claim for compensation was for the fact that he was given a hearing even though he waived it (p. 24, lines 33-35). However, in this last context, it seems that the defendant deserves credit for choosing the path of fair discourse before making a decision that means cutting off the plaintiff-employee's source of income, as Mr. Kfir Barak explained well in his testimony before us: