The following are the instructions for compiling the terms of service for the payment of standby hours:
[...]
The on-call hours will be paid to the employees in accordance with the quota approved for them by their superiors for the purpose of fulfilling their duties and according to a detailed report of the actual on-call performance.
There is an obligation to submit a detailed report every month of the hours of alert (date and time). The sole authorization for the establishment of a standby is in the hands of the Director-General. An employee who does not report being on standby in a particular month is not entitled to payment for being on standby in that month, and the payment constitutes a wage deviation according to section 29 of the Foundations of Budget Law."[50] (emphases in the original - R.G.).
The instructions referred to by the expert on behalf of the defendant are in accordance with the provisions of Section 27.8 of the Labor Law for Employees in Local Authorities in Israel (hereinafter: the "Labor Constitution").
- From the aforesaid, it emerges that the source from which the union derived the possibility of paying employees on standby, even if partially and adapted to its needs, is the normative framework that applies to employees of local authorities. However, no procedure was presented from which it is possible to learn from the instructions adopted by the union regarding the payment of on-call hours (which on-call calls it pays, to which employees, and to what extent), nor was a list of criteria presented for the division of on-call hours among employees. In the circumstances of the case, we will examine below the plaintiff's arguments in relation to the types of alerts that she petitions to receive, on the basis of the evidence brought before us.
Air Alert
- From the evidence that was brought before us, it appears that the plaintiff's first written request to join the "air drive round" was on June 4, 1998 (see Appendix F to the affidavit of the main witness on behalf of Dr. Rosen), about 8 years after the plaintiff began working for the defendant, during the period in which she worked 50% of the time. At that time, other employees who worked for the defendant full-time were already serving as air drives for a number of years, including Doron Lahav (hereinafter: "Doron" or "Mr. Lahav") and Mr. Haim, who began working for the defendant even before the plaintiff, and the employee with me, who began working for the defendant not long after the plaintiff. There is no dispute that the three employees received 80 hours of air alert from the beginning of their employment, "as part of the terms of their employment", as the plaintiff even defined[51]. Against this background, on July 4, 1998, Dr. Rosen replied to the plaintiff and the other employee who approached her together as follows: "I have examined your request of June 4, 1998 to join the Air Drives Round. I cannot increase the amount paid for the bookcases, and therefore air drives will continue to be Doron, Itay and Haim" (emphasis added - R.G.).
- It should be emphasized that although the plaintiff alleges personal harassment by Dr. Rosen towards her in relation to the division of the on-call situations[52]; and the plaintiff also stated that "between the years 1990-1996" during which "Mr. Aharon Zohar served as the union's CEO, I received tenure at that time, and the working relations were excellent"[53], considering the plaintiff's statement that the employees Doron, Itay and Haim received 80 hours of air alert immediately upon the beginning of their employment (as well as 80 hours of air alert work), The person who authorized the three employees in question to perform 80 hours of air alert, while the plaintiff worked part-time and did not perform any alert at all, was the previous CEO, and not Dr. Rosen. Indeed, Dr. Rosen testified in this regard:
"Q: ... That you see the names of Doron, Itay and Haim and you see the names of Carolyn and Sylvie, do you feel that there is something problematic here?