I have to share with you the feelings I left the meeting with.
I feel that it doesn't matter the effort I make, it doesn't matter the training I go through, the patience I show, you're not willing to promote me to the level of salary equivalent to my generation.
And so I felt that the motives here were not only professional, but rather personal between us.
This feeling is unpleasant and excites me very much.
Slavic"[12] (emphases added - R.G.).
Dr. Rosen replied to the plaintiff on September 2, 2014:
"You're wrong. But I really don't intend to correspond on this issue." 13]
- During 2014, shortly after Adv. Tzachi Abu took over as chairman of the association at the time, the plaintiff was given an addition of half a rank (rank 42+). The half-rank was given to the plaintiff on June 1, 2014. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed that this supplement was given about ten years late, since she was entitled to it as early as January 1, 2004. [14] On the other hand, the defendant claimed in his statement of defense that the increase in rank was given to the plaintiff even though she exceeded the approved range of ranks for her position. 15]
- On June 30, 2016 , the plaintiff again participated in a meeting of the union's management and again raised her requests to improve her employment conditions. 16] The plaintiff attached to her supplementary affidavit[17] a transcript which she claimed was written by her in the main points of that meeting. In accordance with the aforesaid protocol, in the framework of that meeting, the plaintiff raised arguments regarding equal pay for male and female employees, as well as her arguments regarding the reasons for which she is entitled to receive standby.
- The plaintiff claims that about 8 weeks after the management meeting held in June 2016, she received a response according to which the management approved the on-call hours for her, but her decision was forwarded to legal counsel in light of a planned change in the organizational structure of the association. [18] Even with regard to the alleged response, no reference was presented before us.
- It should be noted here that during the years 2014-2016, a new organizational outline for the union was prepared and approved by the Ministries of Interior and Finance. [19] This outline included a new hierarchy: a director-general, 2 division directors, 3 department directors, and 7 coordinators in the various departments. Until that time, all of the union's employees (except the CEO) were in the "coordinators" standard, and there was no formal management backbone. 20]
- In 2017, a change in the organizational structure of the association was made. As part of the new organizational outline for the Association, on January 1, 2017, tenders were published for the new managerial positions (2 department heads and 3 department managers). 21] The plaintiff did not apply for any of the tenders, and in the framework of the present proceeding she claims that she did not know about the publication of the tenders. The plaintiff further claims that she was discriminated against in these tenders, as they set discriminatory threshold conditions (appropriate training for performing alert training, including standby of hazardous materials), a condition that she claims blocked her and the path of most of the employees (women in the union) to managerial positions. 22]
- The plaintiff's role as a computing and recycling coordinator was integrated into the new organizational structure, and she continued to serve in this position, while maintaining all of her previous employment and salary conditions, including the addition of 40 hours of air alert.
- After the change in organizational structure, the plaintiff asked to appear before the management again.
- On September 26, 2017, a management meeting was held with the participation of the plaintiff, Dr. Rosen, the chairman of the association and the appealer of the association's family, in which the plaintiff's claims and requests for a salary increase were discussed. 23] The content of the meeting will be presented in detail later in the judgment. However, it should be noted here that in the framework of that meeting, Dr. Rosen clarified that the plaintiff was ranked fourth in the salary ranking of the association and that her salary exceeded the salary of a department manager, a figure that is not in dispute between the parties. At the end of the meeting, the Association's management decided not to approve the plaintiff's request for a salary increase, and it was determined as follows:
"1. There is no justification for a salary increase.
- Sylvie will only work during working hours. Overtime will be approved for meetings or discussions that take place in practice. Overtime will not be approved for work done from home.
- Sylvie will give Anat a weekly report every Sunday, regarding the work performed during the previous week on an hourly basis.
- Sylvie will submit to Anat, by November 1, 2017, a fault handling report by Yann from Bynet, both in the union and by remote control. Details of what is done at each hour from the bank of hours purchased from Bynet, as of January 2014.
- Sylvie will submit to Anat, by November 1, 2017, a report regarding the 40 computers and 8 servers - where each one is located. It will also list the three websites it manages. Sylvie will detail what the backup work of each server includes. Sylvie will detail her role in handling the new phones and switchboards starting in January 2016. Detail the nature of the malfunctions that occurred and how they were handled. Sylvie will detail the nature of Microsoft's license management handling.
- Sylvie will submit to Anat, by November 1, 2017, a report on all the courses and continuing education that have been approved for her, noting the days of work and participation in tuition since 2007.
- At the next council meeting, Sylvie will present the work in the municipalities as part of the "Environmental Tag" program and energy efficiency.
In light of Sylvie's claims and the reports that will be submitted, changes in Sylvie's role will be considered, including a reduction in assignments."
- After the management meeting, the plaintiff was asked to submit a report on the performance of actions and tasks within her jurisdiction. Thus, on November 2, 2017, Dr. Rosen contacted the plaintiff and wrote as follows:
"...At your request, we held a discussion with the association's management on September 26, 2017, and the minutes of the meeting were sent to you on October 2, 2017.