The structural change, which was approved by the Ministries of Interior and Finance, was made "in secret, without any transparency, and in violation of basic equality and my basic right to advance in my workplace, whose life I have tied ."In it." 144]
The plaintiff believed that the organizational change would allow her and the other employees to compete for positions and improve their employment conditions, but in practice, the change "was imposed on us as a fait accompli." [145] The "structural change" was not a real change at all, but rather "a means of promoting employees whom the CEO wished to cherish," through a preliminary decision that allowed certain employees to obtain the ranks of department or department managers.[ 146]
"At the time of the tenders, the plaintiff had 26 years of experience in the Association, held an engineering degree and towards the end of her bachelor's degree in management, was a member of the Association's 'air crew' for a long period of time." [147] The plaintiff was qualified to compete for management positions, she actually served as the chief information systems manager (CIO) in the association, a position equivalent in status to the director of a division in local authorities. Despite the fact that the plaintiff is the director of information systems in the Association, and despite the fact that this position is identical in status to that of a division manager in local authorities, the plaintiff's terms of employment were not updated to the division manager as part of the structural change, which, as stated, was a full decision of the association.
In addition, the plaintiff did not receive any publicity about internal tenders to her email inbox, contrary to the CEO's practice of sending her external tenders for publication on the association's website. The CEO did not want the plaintiff to approach the tenders and did everything in her power to prevent her from being exposed to the dates of the tenders. Reinforcing the plaintiff's claim is the fact that the staff meeting on December 12, 2016, in which the date of publication of the tenders was announced, was recorded in the diary as a "birthday event", and the plaintiff was not present at this meeting. If the plaintiff had known about the tenders, she would probably have approached them. 148]