In these circumstances, in which the plaintiff herself raised many claims at the meeting regarding the scope of her work and salary, and claimed that she "requires on-call hours for the management of websites and additional alertness," because she "does much more than... and earns less," and asked for wage increases; On the other hand, the CEO claimed that the plaintiff was the only employee who did not know what she was doing during work hours, that she did not receive regular reports from her like other employees, and that she was approving overtime hours from home without checking whether they were justified. The purpose of the reports was to understand the factual basis for the plaintiff's requests and claims, and accordingly to consider adjustments and perhaps even to bring the plaintiff to an understanding regarding the scope of work hours required to fulfill her duties. As is explicitly stated from the minutes of the management meeting of September 26, 2017, it was recorded that "in light of Sylvie's claims and the reports that will be submitted, changes in Sylvie's position will be considered, including the reduction of tasks." This determination shows that the demand for reports also stemmed from the intention to examine the possibility of easing the burden on the plaintiff, if it turns out that she is working on a higher scale than expected, and not only for the purpose of criticizing or humiliating her. This is despite the fact that it is indeed evident that the members of the association's management believed from the outset that this was not a broad scope of work as the plaintiff claims.
- It should be noted here that the plaintiff contacted the Engineers Association regarding the demand for reports, and on November 27, 2017, the Histadrut contacted the defendant on this matter. In her testimony, Dr. Rosen clarified that following the request, she met with representatives of the Histadrut, Mr. Gad Gafni and Adv. Dorit Schwartz, and that during this meeting, all the parties reached an agreement that the plaintiff was not entitled to any salary increase, and that the treatment of her was not discriminatory or abusive. As a result, representatives of the Histadrut did not contact Dr. Rosen again after that meeting. [248] The plaintiff did not contradict this claim. The plaintiff was asked in her cross-examination why she did not summon any party from the Histadrut to testify, and she replied that she had considered it, but decided not to involve workers or external parties. She explained that representatives of the Histadrut were willing to represent her only if she stopped working with her lawyer, and she chose to keep the lawyer, saying, "I may have made a mistake." In any event, the plaintiff did not give any satisfactory explanation for refraining from bringing the testimony of any member of the Histadrut who, according to her, dealt with her case and the allegations of abuse and harassment that she raised.
- As for the decision regarding overtime, the decision according to which "Sylvie will work only within working hours" and that "overtime will be approved for meetings or discussions that are actually taking place. Overtime will not be approved for work performed from home", once again it is clear that this decision came against the background of the CEO's statements to the members of the management, according to which she does not check at all whether the hours reported by the plaintiff are justified and against the background of the management members' disagreement with the plaintiff's claims and their impression that there is no basis for the plaintiff's demands. It is important to note that despite the management's decision, Dr. Rosen continued to authorize the plaintiff to perform overtime, as she clarified in her testimony: "For every additional hour she reported she received, I did not reduce her hours." Dr. Rosen emphasized that the plaintiff "worked overtime and she received overtime."
- As to the plaintiff's claim regarding the monitoring of the use of the union vehicle used by her, we did not find to accept the defendant's claim that this was a "sample test for the other union employees who use the union's vehicles"[253], and no external evidence was brought to support this claim. The summons to the clarification call referred specifically and exclusively to the plaintiff, and no reports, findings, or inquiries made in the case of other employees were presented. In these circumstances, the impression obtained is that the examination was directed at the plaintiff individually, and that its timing is not detached from the legal proceeding submitted by it. Even if we accept the defendant's position in principle that he is entitled to check whether the reports of working hours correspond to the actual scope of work, the manner in which the examination was conducted, the date it was conducted and the subsequent attempt to present it as a general examination, give rise to a difficulty.
On the merits of the examination, Dr. Rosen stated that the plaintiff was summoned to an inquiry call due to suspicion of committing disciplinary offenses, including false reports and use of the association's vehicle other than for work and job purposes. The summons stated that on various dates (such as 3.1.2019, 14.1.2019, 15.1.2019, 21.1.2019, 4.2.2019, 6.2.2019, 7.2.2019, 20.2019, 5.3.2019, 17.3.2019, 4.4.2019, 17.4.2019), the vehicle was parked near the plaintiff's residential address for an hour and a half or more during the workday, and that the plaintiff drove the car to places unrelated to her job.