A: Yes.
Q: Did you approach this tender?
A: No, I'll tell you why, and I'll explain. Doron's role,
Q: Just, let's just confirm that it's already, Anat is not in the union, right?
A: That's right, Anat is not in the union. Doron's position was that of a division manager. Director of the Capital Division, of Human Capital, Education and Air. He was a division manager and the tender was for the director of the air quality and climate change department.
Q: Okay.
A: Okay. I assume that if the position of director of a division had remained the same, then I would have approached this tender, because I think that I,
Q: Managing the Division?
A: Yes.
Q: I get it, you mean you did it here,
A: Because I have the skills of human capital."[188] (emphasis added, R.G.).
It should be noted here that in accordance with Dr. Rosen's statement before the Association's management at the meeting on September 26, 2017, the plaintiff's salary at that time was higher than the salary of a department manager after the structural change, which further explains why the plaintiff was not interested in submitting a bid for a department manager's tender.
- We will add that the plaintiff did not bring any witnesses on her behalf, including other employees or even employees who retired them, to support her claim that the organizational reform process was conducted in a lack of transparency, or that the tenders were not published on the bulletin board. The absence of this supporting testimony acts in accordance with the plaintiff's obligation, and shows that if those witnesses had been brought to testify, it would have acted in accordance with her obligation.
- Moreover, from the email correspondence between the plaintiff and Dr. Rosen dated October 9, 2016 (Appendix A to the plaintiff's affidavit), it clearly emerges that the plaintiff was well aware of the organizational "outline" process and its approval even before the tenders were published. Thus, on October 9, 2016, the plaintiff addressed the CEO in the following terms:
"Hi Anat,