- The outline for all city associations was approved by the Ministry of Interior and Finance, standards were approved - for department managers, for us standards were approved for two department directors and three department managers.
- Infrastructure and Industries Division
- Department Managers - Industries and Business Licensing,
Waste and pest control.
Contaminated soil hub.
- Human and Financial Capital Management Division" (emphases in the original - R.G.).
- We have not lost sight of the plaintiff's claim that she was not present at the staff meeting of December 28, 2016, in which it was announced that on the coming Sunday after the meeting, the tenders would be hung on the bulletin board, and that "within a week paperwork must be submitted and a week later an examination committee composed of various representatives will be held." However, it was not proven that the plaintiff's absence at this meeting led to the fact that she did not know about the publication of the tenders, or that for this reason she did not apply for those tenders, and all the more so, it was not proven that Dr. Rosen or anyone on behalf of the defendant acted to conceal from the plaintiff the publication of the tenders.
- In this regard, we accept Dr. Rosen's version that the tenders were published on the bulletin board in an open and accessible manner to all employees. Dr. Rosen testified that the bulletin board is located in the center of the association, in the printer room and at the entrance to the computer room, a room where "everyone works" ("passing" - R.G.), this, our mailboxes are there...". [170] She also added that "an employee who was not present at a staff meeting is also obligated to ask what happened"[171], and testified that the plaintiff "knew very well" about the reorganization process,[172] and even knew about the existence of the tenders:
"A: She knew it wasn't to be, it wasn't, it wasn't hidden, it was, we've been dealing with it for years, everyone knew, she must have known. This, every document that comes out is written, it had access to all the documents of the management, even to documents that others do not have access to. She, Sylvie knows how to reach anything, she must have seen it. I'm surprised.. At all from the thought that she did not know"[173] emphasis added - R.G.).
- The plaintiff's testimony regarding the publication of the tenders was flawed. In paragraph 86 of the affidavit of her supplementary main testimony, the plaintiff states emphatically: "...Prior to the appointment, no tenders were published" (emphasis added - R.G.). However, in her cross-examination, her testimony regarding the "participation" of the workers in the tenders would have evaded and changed. When the plaintiff was confronted with the fact that Dr. Rosen "says that there was participation of the workers, the tenders were published on the bulletin board, everyone knew about these things and that's it, you say they hid it from me, she says there never was and never was created," the plaintiff replied, "I ask... What is sharing?" [174] At this stage, from such conclusive testimony that as aforesaid, no tenders were published, the plaintiff testified that she herself did not see an advertisement: "I did not, I did not see an advertisement.. Why should I advertise on a bulletin board? Why not send emails"[175] (emphases added - R.G.). It should be noted that although the plaintiff claims that other tenders were published on the association's website, the tenders to which the plaintiff refers are the external tenders for the recruitment of employees outside the union, or tenders for vacant positions in other unions and not in internal tenders within the union itself. [176] We will add that when the court asked to find out whether there were other employees who claimed that they had not seen the advertisement on the bulletin board, the plaintiff replied: "We don't, not everyone talks to the other."[177] Afterwards, she changed her version and claimed, "We spoke in retrospect after we saw that this building, they had already proposed it, it is...[178] And when asked who she spoke with, she replied: "We spoke with me and one other employee, because we wanted to approach these tenders. I don't talk to everyone and start interrogating them, yes there wasn't. People who are close to me, so I do talk to them."[179] When the plaintiff was asked who was the same employee who did not see the tenders on the bulletin board, she replied: "Barkat." However, the plaintiff refrained from summoning Ms. Barkat or any other employee to support her version in general, and in her version regarding the non-publication of the tenders in particular. Moreover, a review of the minutes of the staff meeting of December 28, 2019[181] shows that Ms. Barkat was present at the meeting, so it cannot be disputed that she knew that the tenders were to be published on Sunday on the bulletin board.
- We are unable to accept the plaintiff's argument that the meeting of December 28, 2016, in which he announced the publication of the tenders, "was determined in the diary as a birthday event"[182]. Indeed, when the plaintiff was asked in her cross-examination about the staff meeting on December 28, 2016, she replied: "I did not accept, A. I supplanted the meeting... I checked my email and didn't receive it."[183] However, at the next evidentiary hearing, on September 16, 2024, the plaintiff herself presented an invitation to the same meeting (P/3), in which the subject line was recorded as "staff meeting - birthday" (emphasis added - R.G.). The fact that Mr. Lahav also referred to birthdays in an email on his behalf does not negate the fact that the meeting was, in the first place, a staff meeting. Dr. Rosen even clarified on this matter: "The content of the meeting was never published..."[184]. In addition, the defendant presented the minutes of the staff meeting. Dr. Rosen testified unequivocally that "there was a staff meeting" in which "I opened the meeting with congratulations to Doron and Sigal." In response to the plaintiff's attorney's question as to whether it was possible that this was a toast in honor of the birthday of two of the union's employees, Dr. Rosen clarified that "it was not a birthday meeting." 186]
- We also did not find credence in the plaintiff's version that "if I had known about them ("the tenders" - R.G.)I would probably have approached, but I didn't see them." From the evidence brought before us, we are persuaded that the real reason why the plaintiff did not apply for tenders lies in the fact that she did not meet the prerequisites for the positions in the tenders for division managers, and she even knew that there were other employees who met the required prerequisites, both in terms of education and experience. As for the tenders that were published at the time for positions at the level of department manager, the plaintiff was not interested in a tender for a position at this level. As she also clarified in her testimony regarding the position of department manager, which was published at a later stage:
"Q. ... But Anat tells me that after Doron left his position, it became public, a tender for the director of the Air Department was published, do you know about this tender?