"In order to fulfill the obligation to hear, this does not mean that certain formal 'rules of ceremony' must be observed. The question of whether the obligation to hear is fulfilled in any case derives from its own circumstances. It is not like a case in which the factual or other basis for dismissal is extensive in a simple case. Moreover, not every 'defect' in the hearing necessarily justifies the award of compensation - each case must be examined in its own circumstances."
- In the application to our case, as we discussed at length above, there were indeed flaws in the hearing process. However, we have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff's arguments were heard and that at the end of the day the decision to fire the plaintiff was justified in the circumstances of the case.
- In light of the aforesaid, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, the nature of the defects that occurred in the plaintiff's dismissal, the plaintiff's employment seniority, the manner in which she terminated her employment with the defendant, and while taking into account the plaintiff's conduct as well as our determination that her dismissal was justified in the circumstances of the case, we have reached the conclusion that the defendant should be obligated to pay the plaintiff a moderate non-pecuniary compensation in the sum of ILS 22,000.
Conclusion
- The defendant conducted a quick hearing for the plaintiff in such a way that the plaintiff was fired from her job after 12 years from one day to the present within a few hours. In these circumstances, and as detailed in detail above, in view of the flaws in the hearing process, the defendant will compensate the plaintiff in the sum of ILS 22,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
- As to legal expenses, in the course of the proceeding, the defendant retracted the arguments raised by him in the statement of defense, such as the claim that the plaintiff was paid the sum for advance notice fees (and therefore this component was accepted in full), as well as other factual arguments that we discussed above. In addition, the defendant did not attach the minutes of the hearing to the statement of defense, and only following the plaintiff's request and the court's decision of February 18, 2025, the minutes were attached. Subsequently, only following the court's decision of May 22, 2025, did the defendant attach to the file the publication made by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant attached a new document (a newspaper headline) to his summaries for the first time, when it was not clarified why this was not done earlier in the framework of her affidavits and without requesting prior permission to submit the document. In addition, the defendant did not appear for the conciliation hearing in the case, even though the invitation was observed by him when no satisfactory explanation was given in the defendant's response of March 4, 2025 to this matter (see also paragraph 1 of the decision of March 4, 2025). In these circumstances, taking into account that the claim was partially accepted, and despite the fact that the amount awarded in the framework of the judgment is significantly lower than the amount requested in the framework of the claim, in view of the defendant's conduct, there is room to charge him for the plaintiff's expenses. After we have considered all the circumstances and the defendant's conduct, the defendant will bear the plaintiff's expenses in the sum of ILS 1,000 and attorney's fees in the amount of ILS 5,000.
- The aforementioned sums will be paid within 30 days of receipt of the judgment.
The judgment can be appealed to the National Labor Court in Jerusalem within 30 days of receiving the judgment.