In the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff's claims regarding discrimination in the structural change proceedings and tenders (2017), or any other claim of discrimination in the union, should be rejected.
The structural change and the tenders were not held "in secret"
- First, we note that the plaintiff's claims that the structural change was made "in secret" and that she did not receive publicity about the tenders, was an argument that developed during the conduct of the legal proceedings in the court and was not raised by the plaintiff during the period of work (despite the many inquiries regarding her salary, including participation in management meetings in the years 2016-2017 for the purpose of presenting her claims), or close to the organizational change proceedings and the tenders, and was not even claimed in the statement of claim filed in April 2019. or in the first affidavit of the main witness submitted to the file. All that is claimed in the statement of claim in this matter is that "in the 'reorganization', the appointment of directors of departments and departments, the plaintiff's request for the appointment was refused by the director-general, on the grounds that the plaintiff does not have an academic degree, even though the plaintiff meets the conditions and education appropriate for such an appointment, she has an academic degree, a fact that is well known to Ms. (Dr. Rosen-R.G.) who herself approved her studies for a master's degree" (paragraph 31(2) of the statement of claim). Similarly, in her first affidavit of testimony, nothing was claimed about concealment, and all that was claimed was: "I was not appointed director of a division or department on the grounds that I did not have an academic degree, even though I had a degree."
- It should be emphasized that even at the management meeting on September 26, 2017, in which the plaintiff appeared to argue her claims regarding discrimination and non-promotion, the plaintiff did not raise a claim of an imtransparent reorganization process or the concealment of tenders in a manner that caused her not to apply. Moreover, in the plaintiff's letter sent to the union in September 2017,[160] after that management meeting, it was not claimed that the tenders were hidden from the plaintiff and it was not claimed that the change in the organizational structure was conducted in a non-transparent manner. It is also clear from the letter that the plaintiff knew that as part of the change in the organizational structure, there was a desire to regulate the issue of the wages of employees who carried out on-call strikes: "Recently, the union's management has been in the process of changing the organizational structure in order to settle the issue of wages for employees who perform on-call and additional employees, and despite the opportunity to regulate the issue of my client's wages as well, my client was not included in the process and the new organizational structure."
- We will add that not only did the defendant's claims regarding structural change and tenders that were held "in secret" not come up at the beginning of the proceeding, these arguments are also inconsistent with the evidence presented. In accordance with Dr. Rosen's consistent testimony, which was not contradicted by the plaintiff, the new organizational outline was approved under the close supervision of the Ministries of Interior and Finance, and was published openly to the employees. Dr. Rosen emphasized, both in her main testimony affidavit and in her supplementary testimony affidavit, that in 2014 "an action plan was prepared for implementation by all the city unions, which was forwarded for approval by the Ministries of Interior and Finance." She added that "during the years 2014-2016, a new organizational outline was prepared for the union, which was brought to the approval of the Ministries of Interior and Finance, according to the following hierarchy and division: a director-general, 2 department managers, 3 department managers, and 7 coordinators in the various departments." [163] Dr. Rosen concluded that "the entire process of organizational change in the union was carried out under the close supervision of the Ministries of Interior and Finance" and that "the union under my management was the first to lead the process of general organizational change." In accordance with this consistent version, which was not contradicted in the cross-examination, the process of changing the organizational structure was carried out under the supervision and approval of all the relevant parties in the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Finance, and the plaintiff and the other employees were aware of it all along.
- In this regard, Dr. Rosen consistently testified that the organizational change process "was not only not carried out 'in secret' as the plaintiff claims, but was done in public, with the participation of all the employees."[165] In her testimony in court, she clarified again: "It began, it was two years with, with the Ministries of Finance and the Ministry of Interior, for an outline for all the unions. We were the first union to later reorganize us."[166] In support of her version, Dr. Rosen attached reports from two staff meetings, dated November 16, 2016 and December 28, 2016[167], in which the organizational changes were discussed and the publication of the internal tenders was announced. The plaintiff herself confirmed in her cross-examination that she was present at the staff meeting on November 16, 2016, at which the new organizational structure was presented. [168] To complete the picture, we will bring what was stated in the summary of the staff meeting of November 16, 2016 regarding the new organizational structure, as follows:
"- Organizational structure - union: Currently the structure is lateral - a structure that does not allow promotion, etc., the structure will be changed to a hierarchical structure (promotion options will be given), the change in structure will be added to the arrangement of employee employment, there was an organizational consultant throughout the process.