Labor Dispute (Be’er Sheva) 32096-04-19 Sylvia Dahan Guetta – Association of Cities for the Environment Ashdod - part 14

0Moreover, the tenders included discriminatory and irrelevant prerequisites: "Appropriate training for the execution of alert, including alertness of hazardous materials".  This threshold condition hedged and narrowed the number of bidders, blocking the path and the path of most of the workers (women in the union) from competing for managerial positions in four of the five tenders that were published.  [149] Thus, the structural change was planned in advance, so that 100% of the men employed at the time in the union of its predecessor, compared to "only 20% of the women" (2 out of 9 women).[ [150] The tenders were "tailor-made" to the size of specific employees (most of them men) who had already been appointed as substitutes, and were not intended to provide a real opportunity for promotion.  The Director General even admitted in her cross-examination that "the tenders were intended for the employees who performed the duties", and that only one candidate submitted each tender, which indicates "tailor-made tenders".  The definition of the role of a division manager was not required by the position itself, but was intended to promote the person who won it, as evidenced by the fact that when one of the division managers retired, his upgraded position was converted back to a department manager.  [151] The plaintiff's main claim of discrimination focuses on the prerequisites regarding "appropriate training for the performance of standby, including the alert of hazardous materials", which was included in four of the five tenders that were published.  [152] The plaintiff claims that this threshold condition was discriminatory and irrelevant, and prevented her and other women from running for senior management positions.  The plaintiff adds that the defendant did not present any evidence that the conditions of the training of the materials materials were required to perform the duties of the directors of the divisions and departments.  According to her, the CEO did not give any explanation as to why these positions required such training, and that this threshold requirement was "a discriminatory barrier that is out of the question." [154] The plaintiff further argues that it was possible to give a period of time for the completion of the training after winning the tender, as is customary, but this was not done, which attests to tenders that are "oriented to specific personas".