12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- There is no dispute that over the years the plaintiff approached Dr. Rosen and asked her to increase the scope of her position, to the scope of a full-time position. According to the plaintiff's statement, the application for an increase in the position began in 1998. 2] The plaintiff also sought to increase the air alert hours to 80 hours per month, and to carry out hazardous materials alert (hereinafter: "hazardous hazardous emergency alerts") in the scope of 80 hours per month, so that the total alert hours would be 160 hours per month.
- In March 2010, when the employee who worked as a cycle coordinator, Ms. Mark, went on maternity leave, the scope of the plaintiff's position was temporarily increased to an additional half-time, in addition to her part-time position as a computer coordinator. Thus, the scope of the plaintiff's position reached 100%. As part of Ms. Mark's job, Ms. Mark was paid for 25 hours of internet alert. There is no dispute that these on-call hours (internet alert) were not paid to the plaintiff after the scope of her job was increased, and that the plaintiff's request to increase the on-call remuneration in light of the increase in the scope of the job was denied. 3]
- In Dr. Rosen's letter dated March 16, 2010, a letter that the plaintiff approved and signed on March 23, 2010, it was clarified to the plaintiff that "during the period of your full-time employment, the terms of the remuneration will be in accordance with your rank in the scope of a full-time position. It should be noted that the number of hours for air alert will not increase, and it will remain for 40 hours a month."[4] (emphasis added - R.G.).
- Against the background of the aforesaid, the additional 40 hours of air alert paid to the plaintiff remained in place, unchanged, even after the increase in the scope of her position to full-time.
- On November 16, 2010, the plaintiff again applied for an additional 40 hours of air alert and 80 hours of air alert. The plaintiff noted in the application regarding the preparedness of the hazardous hazards: "I reiterate my request to receive training to carry out the hazardous hazards alert as well as workers who do not have a background or previous education in the field of hazardous hazards." The plaintiff also requested that she be summoned to a management meeting to present her arguments. 5] Even though the Association's response was not brought before us, there is no dispute that the plaintiff's request to extend the air alert hours and to receive emergency hours was not granted.
Copied from Nevo13. On August 12, 2012, the plaintiff again appealed to the association's management to extend the hours of her participation in the air alert and hazardous emergency system to 160 hours. 6] Both parties did not present to us the minutes of the 2012 management meeting and its decision; however, there is no dispute that even after this management meeting, the plaintiff was not approved for an extension of the air alert hours and no emergency alert hours were approved for her.
- At the end of 2013, after Ms. Mark announced that she did not intend to return to her job, the union's management decided (in accordance with Dr. Rosen's recommendation and at the plaintiff's request) to fix the scope of the plaintiff's position to full-time. [7] The plaintiff claims that upon her transition to full-time, she was entitled to receive 80 hours of air alert per month, similar to the other air drives, but she did not receive such compensation. 8] On the other hand, the defendant argues that the 40 hours of standby that the plaintiff received are "historic" and "virtual" and were not actually carried out, and that there was no justification for doubling these hours with her transition to a full-time position.
- In 2014, the plaintiff was approved to undergo "environmental alert" training [9] and the plaintiff underwent this training. There is a dispute between the parties regarding the significance of environmental alert training. The plaintiff claims that the Association's air alert and hazard alert were merged under the name "environmental alert," so that it was actually trained for air alert, but continued to be entitled to only 40 hours of air alert. [10] The defendant, on the other hand, claims that the plaintiff was never trained for the position of a food emergency worker and that the training she underwent was training as an "environment emergency responder", similar to many other workers. [11] The defendant adds that none of the employees who went on "environmental alert" training were promised that following this training they would receive an additional "environmental alert" and/or an additional "hazardous materials alert".
- On September 1, 2014, after a meeting took place between the plaintiff and Dr. Rosen, the content of which was not brought before us (the plaintiff attached the correspondence after the meeting but did not provide any data about the meeting itself), the plaintiff emailed Dr. Rosen and wrote:
"Good evening Anat,