Labor Dispute (Jerusalem) 19212-10-24 Sanaa Mahamra – Shaare Zedek Medical Center

On August 10, 2024, the plaintiff posted a status on the WhatsApp application.  The next day, during her work day, the plaintiff was summoned to a hearing held later that day, shortly thereafter she was immediately fired from her job after 12 years of work.  Were there flaws in the dismissal process that justify awarding compensation to the plaintiff?

Introduction

1. Mahamra Sanaa, a former employee of the Shaare Zedek Medical Center, petitioned for financial relief as part of this proceeding due to the lack of advance notice and defects in the hearing process.
2. As for the first remedy, which concerns the lack of prior notice, the defendant claimed in the statement of defense that the plaintiff was paid the sum for advance notice fees, but in the framework of the preliminary hearing on March 17, 2025, the defendant's attorney announced that "due to a mistake, the plaintiff was not paid advance notice." Subsequently, the plaintiff announced that the aforementioned was paid to her and therefore this component of the claim became redundant, except in the matter of the plaintiff's claim for a deduction made from the amount paid, which we will discuss below.
3. The plaintiff focused her claims in her claim on various defects that she believed were made in the hearing process. The plaintiff claims that she was not given a hearing willingly and in good faith and that there were a number of material and significant flaws in it, while the defendant claims that the dismissal process was proper and that there were no flaws in the dismissal process.
4. We will preface the beginning and note that after examining the totality of the evidence and the arguments of the parties, we have reached the conclusion that there were flaws in the hearing process, but these are not flaws that go to the root of the matter, which lead to the conclusion that the hearing process was not conducted willingly and in good faith. However, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, we found it appropriate to obligate the defendant to compensate the plaintiff in light of the defects that occurred in the dismissal proceeding, as detailed below.

Relevant Facts

5. The plaintiff worked as an auxiliary force in the children's day hospital and began her work for the defendant on August 28, 2012.
6. On August 10, 2024, the plaintiff posted a status on the WhatsApp application in which it was written, "To them, and we will bring them troops that will not succeed in overcoming them, and we will expel them from their homeland surrendering and being humiliated" (from the Qur'an, Surah 37, verse 37) (hereinafter - a verse from the Qur'an), with a picture appearing in the background of this inscription, in which the parties disagreed.
7. The next day, on August 11, 2024, during her work day, she received a summons to a hearing stating that "on August 10, 2024, you posted on the social network "WHATSUP" a status in which a video/publication of nationalist-offensive messages, with the intention of incitement, harming hospital employees and the name of the workplace was" The hearing was scheduled for the rest of the day at 12:00.
8. As can be seen from the minutes of the hearing, the hearing held for the plaintiff on that date was attended by Ms. Tali Schwerin, the defendant's human resources manager (hereinafter - Schwerin), Ms. Sigal Mizrahi, the nursing human resources manager, Mr. Yoni Shimon, security manager, Ms. Eti Gabbay, chairperson of the workers' committee, and Ms. Ortal Benita, who recorded the minutes.
9. Later that day, after about half an hour, the plaintiff was given a "decision after a hearing," and in this context, the plaintiff was informed that "in light of what arose in the hearing conversation, it was decided to terminate your employment at the hospital." It was also reported that her last day of work is on this date (August 11, 2024) and the plaintiff will receive notice instead. The plaintiff was asked to make a travel form on that date.  Subsequently, a security guard accompanied the plaintiff until she left the hospital door.
10. On August 13, 2024, the plaintiff, through an attorney, contacted the defendant in a letter in which she requested that her decision be reconsidered and that she be reinstated to work, and alternatively to make do with a warning.
11. On August 21, 2024, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's request.
12. On October 9, 2024, the plaintiff filed her claim with the court.
13. On July 13, 2025, the plaintiff and Ms. Schwerin testified before us on behalf of the defendant, after which the parties submitted their written summaries.

The parties' arguments

14. First of all, we note that in their summaries the parties raised new arguments and the defendant even attached to his summaries without obtaining permission as required a new document (newspaper headline) on his behalf. As is well known, the pleadings are the ones that define the front of the dispute between the parties, and therefore we do not intend to discuss new claims that are not mentioned in the pleadings, and in the circumstances of the case we do not intend to refer to a document from the newspaper that the defendant attached to his summaries.
15. The plaintiff claims that there were a number of material flaws in the hearing process - the hearing was conducted quickly without allowing her to prepare as required or allowing her to add an escort or representative to the hearing call, there was no orderly protocol for the hearing, no Arabic interpreter was present at the hearing despite the plaintiff's difficulty in the Hebrew language, and she was not allowed to voice her arguments as required during the hearing. The plaintiff adds that the defendant's conduct indicates that this was not a hearing that was held with an open heart and a willing soul.  The plaintiff further claims that the defendant did not consider her long work experience as part of his considerations, nor did he consider other work alternatives in the circumstances of the case.  In these circumstances, the plaintiff petitioned to charge the defendant in the sum of ILS 61,800.
16. The defendant claims that the hearing held for the plaintiff was conducted lawfully and in the framework of which she was allowed to present her arguments, she was not prevented from the possibility of adding an escort on her behalf to the hearing, the hearing was documented in an orderly protocol. The defendant added that in the circumstances of the publication of the status, it was necessary to hold a speedy hearing and argued in this context that the dismissal letter was given to the plaintiff a day after the hearing, after the defendant had considered the plaintiff's claims.

Discussion and Decision