"I wanted to hear you. I was wrong, I was wrong. Instead of issuing you a dismissal letter after you said you were giving it up, I really wanted to hear your side. Maybe there's some problem that I don't know. Maybe the girl's problem is more serious than I think. That you don't come, that you're flirting, that you're not coming, that you're not functioning, I wanted to understand. I think, I believe in the hearing. As an employer, I tell you, I believe in the hearing more than the employee.
- So why not?
- Every day I have a hearing, a second, every day I have hearings in the branches. Every day I receive letters, clarification calls and warning calls to encourage the employee to return to his old ways and work better, I believe in this process."
(p. 64, lines 18-30).
It is evident from the statements that the plaintiff was summoned to a hearing in good faith and for the purpose of hearing "his side". Even if Mr. Kfir Barak fairly admitted that in retrospect in the plaintiff's case, it turned out that it would have been better to skip the hearing. Our position is that the defendant did well to try to maintain the necessary dialogue with the plaintiff, prior to making a decision on his dismissal, and in any case there is no reason to obligate it to compensate the plaintiff. All the more so, when it became clear from the testimonies heard before us that the plaintiff had appeared for a hearing but at first did not cooperate (p. 25, lines 25-26; p. 65, lines 8-10), and then he began to cooperate partially. In other words, he was present at the hearing and listened to the defendant's statements, but did not actively participate in it, and in the process did not lay out all the arguments he raised in the statement of claim and in the affidavit. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that during the hearing he had given up on raising his arguments (p. 27, lines 4-13), even though there was no impediment to him doing so. Thus, in fact, the plaintiff did not allow the defendant to hold a full hearing for him , even though she very much wanted to do so.
- To a large extent, beyond what is required, we will add that our opinion is that the hearing that was held included all the core elements and we will detail briefly.
[a] The summons to the hearing: After hearing the testimonies of the plaintiff and Mr. Kfir Barak, and seeing their correspondence on the WhatsApp application, which attest to the fact that the daily conduct between them was through him, our position is that there was no defect in the fact that the invitation to the hearing was sent to the plaintiff via the app. Moreover, in our opinion, the lack of mention of the plaintiff's position is not a defect, since the plaintiff knew very well what his role was. As for the identity of the sender, the network logo appears at the top of the letter, and it seems that this is enough. At the end, it was written that the summoner was "the management of the human resources department", although without the name of the person, and the fact that it was written "personal delivery" are at most only formal defects, and do not descend to the essence of the hearing process. All the more so when the plaintiff could have asked for clarification even before the hearing, to the extent that it was required of him, but he did not do so, and his reasons were with him.