The defendant details significant benefits that the plaintiff received, including partial funding for undergraduate and graduate studies, a salary increase and a change in the definition of a position at the initiative of Dr. Rosen, and her extensive participation in courses and continuing education courses at the expense of the Association. The plaintiff demonstrated bad faith by filing her claim immediately after receiving permission for a study tour at the Association's expense.
The plaintiff is often absent from work, is unavailable for emails outside the office, and inquiries into her case, including suspicions of disciplinary violations, were treated with extreme leniency and did not lead to sanctions, which refutes allegations of harassment.
The plaintiff did not present any witnesses to support her claims, which weakens the credibility of her version.
- The criteria set in case law regarding workplace bullying determine that a specific event, exceptional or inconvenient, is not sufficient to establish this ground. Workplace bullying is concerned, as a rule, with a recurring pattern of abusive, humiliating or harassing behaviors, which must be examined as a whole and objectively. Accordingly, not every flaw in the employer's conduct, not every murky attitude, and not every mental anguish experienced by the employee amounts to abuse. It was also determined that it is required to indicate ongoing conduct, as opposed to a one-time act, even if it raises difficulties. [224] On the basis of this criterion, the plaintiff's argument in our case must be examined.
- In view of the totality of the evidence brought before us, we did not find that the plaintiff was able to prove abuse or harassment towards her. The impression is that the plaintiff's failure to accept her claims and requests was interpreted by her as harassment; However, in practice, as detailed in detail above, these were professional decisions by the CEO, who even had to deal with political pressures exerted by the plaintiff, which the plaintiff tried to hide during the course of the legal proceedings.
- Thus, when the plaintiff was asked directly by the defendant's counsel about the statement of the chairman of the association, Mr. Tzachi Abu, according to which there were "constant pressures"[225] that were exerted on him and that the plaintiff was "trying to exert pressure from all directions", the plaintiff categorically denied this, and replied: "I have no idea."
Even when the question focused on the identity of those who exerted pressure, the prosecutor continued her denials: "I really, I have no idea what you're talking about." When asked directly whether the mayor had approached and pressured people in the union "to improve your wage conditions," the plaintiff replied that she did not know[228] and even wondered: "Who said that?"[229]. Later, the plaintiff sought to explain and claimed that the appeal to the mayor was her personal appeal as a resident: "...I was accepted into a very prestigious environmental leadership program, which very few people win... I wrote a project for a sustainability center and as someone who grew up in Ashdod, I asked the mayor that I want as a volunteer to do a sustainability center in Ashdod... There are residents who sign up and ask to come to the mayor, to make suggestions for the benefit of the city, and that's how I get to him... I proposed this project (the establishment of a sustainability center - R.G.)... And he loved this project, I made a presentation for him, I presented it to him exactly... It's a year-long project. When you finish a year like this, you must finish it with a final project, and that was my final project."[230] (emphasis added: R.G.). Although the plaintiff presented her application to the mayor as that of a resident who wanted to volunteer in the construction of the project, in practice, as the testimony of the CEO indicates, it was an attempt to promote the plaintiff and give her a managerial position, which was unsuccessful later on. In any case, according to Dr. Rosen's testimony, the pressures did not end with a single conversation by the mayor about the project of establishing a sustainability center.
- Dr. Rosen clarified in her testimony: "The mayor summoned me to a meeting about Sylvie, not on the subject of the same project that I, by the way, tried to help and push for her to have, to establish the sustainability center and to have it.. The mayor summoned me for a conversation, the director general of the municipality spoke to me, the heads of the municipalities spoke to me, the council members spoke to me, there was really a lot of political pressure."[231] (emphasis added - R.G.). Dr. Rosen also explained that the conversation with the mayor, in which she alleges political pressure, was not about the Sustainability Center, as the plaintiff seeks to claim, but "he said that Sylvie claims that I am abusing her.. He said everything in the statement of claim, that I was abusive, that I discriminated against her, why I didn't give her alerts and I went through everything with him and showed him and he didn't contact me anymore." [232] (emphasis added - R.G.). Later, the CEO explained, "Sylvie's family is very connected in Ashdod, she has brothers who work for the Ashdod municipality and one who works for her... Number 2 in the party... I didn't want to bring up politics... By the way, the chairman of the association, Tzachi Abu, really, on the day he joined the association... He told me... Anat, what can be done to promote Selby?... Because they told him that we had to advance, we had to give her something, we had to improve the conditions, he, on the day he arrived, so I told him if, if we do something, we do it here, we enter an organizational structure for a month.. I won't promote an employee because she's connected...[233] (emphasis added - R.G.).
- We trust Dr. Rosen's testimony regarding the political pressures exerted on her and on members of the union. This testimony is supported by evidence from real time, in contrast to the plaintiff's innocence in her testimony. Thus, already in a meeting held between the plaintiff and Dr. Rosen on February 23, 2017 (long before the September 2017 management meeting), the main issues that Dr. Rosen told the plaintiff were recorded, inter alia: "Sylvie is very connected and exerts pressure through her relatives and friends, on Anat and on the members of the association's management, and this is unacceptable. No other employee in the union behaves in this way, whether he has connections or not" (emphasis added: R.G.). The plaintiff did not deny the claim, but replied: "Anat is approached through external parties because there is no good direct communication."[234] (emphasis added - R.G.). [235] The matter even came up again at the management meeting on September 26, 2017. Before the plaintiff enters the meeting, Dr. Rosen opens and says: ".... At the request of her lawyer, we summon her once again in order to respond to her claims. The very fact that an employee is contacted by an attorney is very puzzling. It caused pressure to be exerted on me and Adv. Tzachi Abu, from the day he was elected chairman, as well as on Eli Escuzido and perhaps others" (emphasis added - R.G.). During the meeting, Chairman Tzachi Abu said, among other things, "I've been with the union for about four years. From the first day I set foot in the union, Sylvie, I know your problem. Non-stop pressures. I tried to help. I try to exert pressure from all directions. There are unacceptable parts. From the first day I was here, you asked for a raise. I dealt with wages only because of you. I turned to Anat and she told me it was a hot potato. It doesn't want to touch on the issue of wages, but if the issue of wages is opened, then it will be in the process of reorganization, with the examination of all employees and with the approval of the Ministries of Interior and Finance. She knows the pressures you exert.. I've been to many places, I've heard complaints, let's promote Sylvie. We looked for every way, yes alert not alert, in order to advance. I was told that it was impossible to add alert, but I risked a personal charge, adding half a rank just for you. Where's the gratitude? You have to admit that you have this job."[236] (emphases added - R.G.). Even at this meeting, as in the meeting with the CEO, the plaintiff does not deny the alleged pressure being exerted against her.
- Here it should be noted with respect to the half-rank, that in the statement of claim the plaintiff also petitioned for the payment of the half-rank that was granted to her in September 2014, retroactively from January 1, 2004. This is despite the fact that at the September 2017 management meeting, it was made clear to her that half of the rank she received was beyond the letter of the law, when the chairman of the association risked a personal charge. It should be clarified, as explained by the Director-General, that the maximum rank for professional coordinators is 40, and the plaintiff received rank 42 already in 2001, beyond the approved range attached to her position. Subsequently, on June 1, 2014, the chairman of the association granted the plaintiff an additional half rank, to rank 42+, despite the fact that she had already exceeded the range of ranks to which she was entitled. In other words, already many years before the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff was given a rank that exceeded the approved tension for her position.
- We are unable to accept the plaintiff's argument that she was not aware that she had received a "half degree" or a "degree of residence" beyond her usual entitlement, or that she did not receive sufficient explanations on the matter. The impression that arises from the totality of the evidence is that the plaintiff was well versed in the terms of her employment and her rights, and received a response to her requests. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that the plaintiff was aware of the matter at least from the date of the 2017 management meeting, and despite this, the plaintiff chose to file a lawsuit in relation to this component as well. It is important to note that when the plaintiff was told this at the management meeting, she was not surprised and did not ask for explanations. The claim of a breach of the duty of good faith by "concealing the reasons for retroactive ineligibility for a degree of residence, in a manner that caused her (the plaintiff - R.G.) anguish" is nothing but another development of the plaintiff's claims in her summaries.
- In any event, we also accept Dr. Rosen's testimony, according to which she acted to benefit the plaintiff wherever she could. Dr. Rosen testified that her worldview is "to give, to enable training and studies," and that she sees training as "a tool that a manager can benefit his employees." In accordance with this view, Dr. Rosen supported the enrichment, study, and advancement of the plaintiff,[238] and even found "an opportune time to transform her from a part-time position to a full-time position."
- This benefit is expressed, among other things, in providing the opportunity and resources to advance and study, including participation in a large number of courses at the expense of the Association, partial funding of undergraduate and graduate studies, while master's degree studies lasted three years and included the absence of one day of study per week at the expense of work days. On July 14, 2016, Dr. Rosen even wrote a letter of recommendation that allowed the plaintiff to be accepted to the master's degree, noting in the letter that "Sylvia is responsible for two main areas in the association: computerization and recycling in the broad sense. Slavia coordinates these two issues in a professional and efficient manner. Sylvia delves deeply and studies every subject she treats." She also detailed the plaintiff's qualities, including "taking responsibility, initiative, punctuality, professionalism, ability to learn and innovate, creative thinking, good interpersonal relationships, mission-drivenness, and striving to achieve the goal."[ [240] Such a detailed and positive letter of recommendation, written by the CEO in order to assist the plaintiff in her academic advancement, contradicts the plaintiff's claims that the CEO acted deliberately against her. This letter of recommendation does not reflect the conduct of an abusive manager, but rather an honest and genuine intention to assist the plaintiff in her advancement.
- In addition, the plaintiff participated in a course that she defined as "prestigious" - an environmental leadership program. The plaintiff stated in paragraph 29 of the statement of claim that she thanked Dr. Rosen for "supporting her in going to this course". This course is another example of the support of the Association's management and Dr. Rosen's support for the plaintiff's professional development.
- Further support for the benevolent intention of the Association's management towards the plaintiff arises from the table presented by the defendant, which details the days of courses and continuing education in the years 2014-2019. This table shows that the plaintiff participated in the largest number of school days (166 days) compared to the rest of the union's employees, at a cost of approximately ILS 25,000 per union. The plaintiff claimed that she was the oldest employee, and that the school days should be examined in relation to the number of years she worked in the union. However, it should be remembered that the plaintiff herself testified that it was only from 2014, when her children grew up, that she could afford to invest in her studies. Therefore, the fact that Dr. Rosen allowed the plaintiff to go out for such a large number of school days in such a relatively short period, and with extensive funding from the Association, assumes particularly great significance, and testifies to a clear intention on the part of the Association to promote the plaintiff professionally.
- In addition, as stated above, the plaintiff was promoted to rank 42+, and received a change in rank with a retroactive professional salary increase, which was given, in Dr. Rosen's words, as "my tool to improve her terms."
- We are unable to accept the plaintiff's claim that the management meeting on September 26, 2017 was a "cross-examination" and a "lynching", and that the decisions made in its wake, and in particular the demand to submit daily and two-hour reports, constituted bullying and vindictive actions. We will clarify our decision below.
Indeed, an examination of the minutes of the management meeting shows that it raised harsh words and very strong allegations against the plaintiff. However, we were under the impression that this manner of conduct stemmed from the plaintiff's repeated requests, the political pressures she exerted, and the CEO's remarks at the meeting regarding the atmosphere created by the plaintiff in the workplace: "Sylvie's conduct is 'bad blood' in a small, family organization. This causes demoralization. It's hard for people to work with celebs and some don't want to... She asks the people in the union and outside it, what did they get? She's busy all day making comparisons." The CEO even noted at the meeting that the plaintiff is "the only employee I really don't know what she does during work hours. I don't receive regular reports from her like other employees." Against the background of all the above, and in view of the fact that the Association's management believed that the plaintiff's requests were unjustified, the members of the management clarified the matter to her firmly and clearly and demanded clear answers from her.