We accept Dr. Rosen's arguments on their behalf, and the plaintiff has not proved any reason why she should be approved for computer standby in addition to the 40 hours of monthly alert that she has already been given as "air alert" in the framework of her role as a computer coordinator.
- Regarding the 2019 Yom Kippur power outage, which the plaintiff cites as an example of the need to provide a permanent standby, Dr. Rosen explained that the plaintiff received full compensation for her work hours, and that Mr. Lahav could also have carried out the download and uploading of the servers, and that he was instructed to prevent future dependence. Moreover, a single case from a particular year cannot indicate a need for constant alert.
- In summary, the totality of the evidence presented shows that no basis has been proven for the plaintiff's demand for a separate computer alert, and that her actual role and conduct did not justify this additional payment.
- Against the background of the aforesaid, the claim for payment of computer standby is dismissed.
- From all of the above, it emerges that the plaintiff has not been able to prove her claims of discrimination and deprivation in conditions of standby and professional training. The decisions regarding the allocation of air alert and hazardous materials, and the failure to send the plaintiff to the training of hazardous materials, stemmed from professional and practical considerations and not from personal harassment or gender discrimination. The plaintiff did not meet the burden of showing that she was entitled to the defendants' alerts (including internet and social media alerts and computer alerts) and did not even prove that she was denied training for professional reasons.
A.2. The Claim of Discrimination in the Structural Change Proceedings and Tenders (2017)
- The plaintiff's main arguments
The structural change that took place in the association in 2017 was fundamentally flawed, not transparent, unequal and harmful. The mask of abusive abuse that the plaintiff experienced for more than two and a half decades, during which she "struggled" for 10 years to be given a raise, "fought and fought and demanded" "an increase in the hours of alert in all kinds of ways, just to receive a raise that the union's own management saw as a salary increase" and ignored it and "dragged it" and pulled it with promises of structural change, reached its peak when the structural change was carried out.They didn't let me run for the positions that were opened."