Obligation to Hear
- Before making a decision to dismiss an employee, an employer is required to give the employee a fair opportunity to voice his claims. In the ruling, it was clarified that the purpose of the hearing process is to allow the employee to raise his claims before the employer and to try to persuade him not to implement the intention to dismiss.
- In Labor Appeal (National) 23402-09-15 Bard v. Cansto in a Tax Appeal (Nevo, February 28, 2017) (hereinafter - the Bader case), the National Court emphasized that although a hearing can be held in a variety of ways, the existence of the core components in the framework of the hearing process must be insisted. Thus it was determined in paragraph 12 of the judgment -
"As stated, although the fulfillment of the obligation to hold a hearing can be done in a number of ways, it is possible to identify a vital common denominator between the various ways of fulfilling it, in order for the purpose of the hearing to be realized. This denominator - without purporting to fulfill it - includes, inter alia, informing the employee of the possibility of dismissal; 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 claims with an open and willing mind; If the employee wishes to be represented in the hearing proceeding, he has the right to do so...".
- From here we will proceed to discuss the arguments of the parties, and in particular the plaintiff's claims for defects that arose in the framework of her dismissal.
The advertisement on the WhatsApp application published by the plaintiff
- Before we address the plaintiff's claims regarding flaws in the hearing process, we would like to address the dispute between the parties stemming from the publication made by the plaintiff on the WhatsApp application.
- The plaintiff claims that she published a verse from the Qur'an with a picture of horsemen riding horses in the desert in the background of the verse, and from here she sought to claim that the publication had no intention of incitement or harm (see also paragraphs 21-22 of the plaintiff's affidavit). The defendant claims that the plaintiff published the verse from the Koran against the background of a blurred picture of the murderous rabbi, Yahya Sinwar, who was the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip (hereinafter: Sinwar), in a manner that shows that this publication contains nationalist-offensive messages and his intention to incite.