Labor Dispute (Be’er Sheva) 32096-04-19 Sylvia Dahan Guetta – Association of Cities for the Environment Ashdod - part 4

During the discussion, it emerged that a number of issues under your responsibility warrant further clarification.

In light of this, the management has decided that you must ensure that the following reports are submitted on time:

1. A weekly report, every Sunday, regarding the work performed during the previous week, on an hourly basis.  So far you have sent me one report since Sunday, and you have not submitted a report on October 21 and October 28.
2. On November 1, 2017 - a fault treatment report by Jan as of January 2014.
3. On November 1, 2017 - a report on computers, servers, websites and switchboards.
4. On November 1, 2017 - a report on courses and continuing education."
5. On November 22, 2017, the Chairman of the Association, Adv. Tzachi Ben Abu, contacted the Prosecutor and demanded that the reports be submitted, as follows:

"Subject to the management's decision, I demand that you submit the requested reports to Anat by Sunday, December 3, 2017, these demands were detailed in the management minutes and in Anat's previous inquiries to you." 24]

1. Against the background of the request to submit the reports, the plaintiff contacted the Engineers Association.  On November 27, 2017, the Engineers Union contacted the union, asking to clarify whether all employees in the union are required to comply with the requirement to submit a weekly report with an accurate breakdown of the work according to hours and days, or whether only the plaintiff is required to do so.  The Histadrut noted that if only the plaintiff is required to do so, then it is discrimination, adding: "These are decrees that the public finds difficult to abide by.  I wish to restore the situation to its previous state so that the employee will feel a more comfortable work environment for the benefit of the union." 25]
2. On December 13, 2017, after receiving a report from the plaintiff, Dr.  Rosen sent the plaintiff the association's response to the reports.  [26] In this letter, it was clarified to the plaintiff, further to the management's decision of September 26, 2017, that the scope of her work does not justify an increase in salary, an increase in standby or a reduction in duties.  Among other things, the letter states that "the demand for weekly work reports stemmed from your claim that you work hard without sufficient compensation.  According to the report you submitted, the scope of the work does not justify additional consideration." The letter also included a specific reference to the reports that were submitted, instructions on how to report working hours, handling computer malfunctions, managing websites, as well as criticism of the plaintiff's attendance and management of vacations, while emphasizing that she must comply with the management's decisions.
3. Following the plaintiff's appeal to the Histadrut, Dr.  Rosen met with the chairman of the Engineers Committee and the appeal of the committee's family.  The date of the meeting was not brought before us.  According to the Association, at this meeting, the parties reached an agreement that the plaintiff was not entitled to any salary increase beyond the salary she was actually receiving.  [27] The plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that during the meetings between the Histadrut and the CEO, the management's demands to receive reports from the plaintiff gradually "dissipated."
4. In August 2018, at Dr.  Rosen's initiative, the plaintiff's classification was changed from "computer engineer" to "environmental engineer".  This change led to a retroactive salary increase of approximately ILS 600 gross per month, as of June 1, 2018.  28]
5. During the plaintiff's employment in the union, she acquired an academic education.  The plaintiff holds a bachelor's degree in management from the Open University as of August 1, 2016, and a master's degree in environmental studies from Tel Aviv University as of June 27, 2019.  [29] The association participated in half of the tuition fees for the master's degree and allowed the plaintiff one day of study per week at the expense of her working days.  30]
6. At the relevant times of the lawsuit, 14 employees were working in the union in antitrust .  [31] At the time of submission of the parties' summaries, the union had 12 employees.  32]
7. On April 15, 2019, the plaintiff filed the statement of claim that is the subject of this proceeding.
8. In May 2019, after the lawsuit was filed, Dr.  Rosen held a meeting with the union's employees in which she reported to the employees about the lawsuit that had been filed.  The plaintiff's attorney sent a warning letter to Dr.  Rosen on this matter, claiming "obstruction of justice." 33]
9. On September 16, 2019, the plaintiff was summoned for an inquiry call due to suspicion of disciplinary offenses, including using the union's vehicle for non-work purposes and falsely reporting work hours.  [34] The plaintiff's counsel sent an additional warning letter alleging "obstruction of justice." 35]
10. The clarification call took place on September 23, 2019.  [36] After examining the findings of the investigation, the association's board decided not to take disciplinary measures against the plaintiff.  According to the association, the decision was made despite the severity of the acts and mainly due to the fact that a legal proceeding is pending between the parties.  37]
11. Following the filing of the lawsuit to the court, the union conducted a comprehensive examination of the pay slips of its employees.  This examination discovered errors in salary calculations made using the "Synel" software.  The association switched to using another payroll software (the "Automation Company") as of January 1, 2020.  As a result of the examination, wage differentials were paid to employees in which errors were discovered, including the plaintiff.  Against this background, in August 2020, the plaintiff was paid wage differentials in the amount of ILS 27,738. 

Summary of the parties' arguments

1. The plaintiff presents a long series of events, which she claims constitute discrimination and violation of her rights, including her "fundamental right to professional development", ongoing discrimination on both personal and gender grounds, and occupational abuse and harassment.  She claimed that despite more than 30 years of experience in the union, she did not receive a promotion, a salary increase, or proper recognition, except due to seniority, rank and education.  The defendant's conduct towards her was abusive and continuous, starting with wage malfunctions that were partially corrected following the filing of the lawsuit, to violating, abusive and discriminatory behavior.  This conduct caused her pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.  The plaintiff adds that when she sought to correct the discrimination, the defendant chose to abuse her.
2. The defendant rejects all of the plaintiff's claims regarding bullying, harassment, discrimination, discrimination and harm to her career.  According to him, over the years the plaintiff was given favorable and improved treatment and conditions, both individually and in comparison to the other employees in the union; And in the circumstances of the case, the claim was filed in bad faith.  According to him, the plaintiff has not been able to meet the burden of proof required to prove her claim, in relation to each of the components of the claim.  In practice, the plaintiff is one of a limited number of the highest-paid employees in the union, and it has been proven that the plaintiff participated in the largest number of courses in the union, both in terms of course days and in terms of financial costs, at the union's expense.  The defendant argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed in all its components.

1. The plaintiff's claims of discrimination, inequality in employment conditions, and discrimination on the basis of gender

A.1.  The Claim of Deprivation and Discrimination in Conditions of Standby and Professional Training

1. The plaintiff's main arguments

Already in the 1990s, the plaintiff felt discriminatory treatment on the part of the defendant, when men who were hired were appointed as air call workers, while her requests for appointment as air attendants were completely rejected.  Thus, men who performed air alerts, including an employee who was hired after the plaintiff, were paid for 80 hours of air alert, while she, who belonged to an "air crew," received only 40 hours of air alert.  The defendant's claim regarding the redundancy of air alert in light of the redundancy of the CBS (intermittent control framework) was first argued in the defendant's summaries, was not argued in the proceeding, constitutes an expansion of the façade and should be deleted.  All employees who received air alert hours continued to receive this alert until the structural change and as part of their wages after the structural change.