A: And I certainly can't take it on my own responsibility to give to someone who doesn't fit. So people who were on call were suited both in experience, in training, and in the courses they underwent."[93] (emphasis added: R.G.).
And:
"I can't think of how she thinks she can do a hazardous hazard alert, I can't imagine how she even thinks she has the tools, how she thinks I can be responsible for her being the hazardous hazard alert." 94]
- Dr. Rosen added in her testimony that although the plaintiff has an academic education, including a master's degree in environmental sciences, her studies do not meet the education required to perform a hazardous emergency alert. Dr. Rosen clarified that environmental science studies are also not relevant training for conducting a hazardous materials alert, noting: "I don't think they touched there, to the best of my knowledge, neither chemistry, nor chemical engineering." In addition, the plaintiff completed her master's degree in environmental sciences only in 2019 - about two years after the 2017 management meeting, and many years after she began with her repeated requests for integration into the Hazardous Materials Alert System.
- Despite Dr. Rosen's consistent position, the plaintiff claims that Dr. Rosen deliberately prevented her from going to training to perform the Hazardous Materials Alert in order to prevent her from being promoted. The plaintiff did not prove this claim. In her affidavit, the plaintiff stated that "for two years, my request to go to the training of materials materials was rejected by the Director-General."[96] The plaintiff adds that after about two years, "when I saw that there was no progress, and that I was not approved of the training of the Hazardous Hazardous Materials, I turned to the council's management in order to convince them myself." According to her, "During the meeting, I was told by members of the management that after I finish my training for the Hazardous Hazards, I will be approved for air alert hours and Hazardous Hazards so that I will perform 160 hours of alert, as other employees do." At this point, she claims, Dr. Rosen "rushed to 'pull out a rabbit' and claimed that the preparedness of the hazardous materials is irrelevant because this field is transferred to the fire authorities, and therefore there is no place to allow me to go out for training. This argument was first made at the management meeting, and it did not come up to me during the two years that I requested the alert earlier."[98] The plaintiff also claimed that in 2009 "a temporary worker, a man, was sent to a course for hazardous assistants, while my requests were rejected time and time again."
- First of all, we should note that according to the plaintiff's own statement, her request to perform a hazardous emergency alert began in2010. In accordance with the certificate that the plaintiff attached as Appendix 16A to her supplementary testimony affidavit, the authorization of the other "temporary" employee to go to the Hazardous Materials Alert Course is dated January 25, 2009. It should be noted that, as the defendant notes, it is not clear how the plaintiff received the personal document of another employee. In any event, this is a certificate that was given almost two years before the plaintiff's written request to perform a hazardous emergency alert on November 16, 2010. Moreover, the plaintiff does not specify what his job was, what his education was, and what was the training of that temporary worker, whom she believes should have been preferred to training over him. All the plaintiff chooses to state in relation to him is that he is a temporary worker and a man. In this regard, it should be clarified that the fact that he was a "temporary employee" does not testify to the fact that he was less suitable than the plaintiff to perform the on-call work.
- Moreover, the plaintiff's claim that during the meeting in 2012 she was told by members of the management that after she completed the training of the Hazardous Hazards, she would be approved for air and hazard alert hours, so that she would perform 160 hours of alert. Among the hundreds (and perhaps more) of the documents submitted by the plaintiff, no document was found attesting to the fact that the management meeting approved or noted in 2012 that the plaintiff would receive 160 hours of standby (air + hazardous materials) after she underwent the appropriate training. All that emerges from the documents is that Dr. Rosen stated that she would allow the plaintiff to go to the "Environmental Alerts" course, while Dr. Rosen clarified that the plaintiff was not promised that following the course on environmental drives, the plaintiff would receive "environmental alertness." In this regard, we will add that Dr. Rosen testified that in practice none of the defendant's employees received environmental alert after the course was performed, and that in practice no additional on-call is paid except for 3 employees among whom the plaintiff is among them,[101] and this claim was not contradicted.
- It should be noted here that the plaintiff's version with regard to the performance of the preparation of the emergency preparedness as opposed to the performance of the environmental alert was confused. Thus, in the statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed that she had been trained to perform a hazardous emergency alert and despite this, she was not added to this alert system. In this regard, in paragraph 31(f)(1) of the statement of claim, it is written as follows: "Failure to enroll the plaintiff in the Environmental Preparedness System, in 2012, the plaintiff was told to complete the aforementioned training and then be added to the aforementioned alert system, which provides a salary of 160 hours per month. On April 6, 2014, the plaintiff completed the aforementioned training, but was not added to this system as detailed above" (emphases added - R.G.). In her testimony, the plaintiff confirmed that "in 2012" "all the preparedness of the Hazardous Hazards was transferred to the fire department, to the fire brigade"[102] and added, "Hazardous materials alert no longer exists, there is only environmental alert."[103] She also testified that "I asked to go on a special alert and Anat said that there was no point in me going on a special alert for a special purpose, because this alert would soon be replaced by an environmental alert."[104] This indicates her understanding that these are different types of alerts, and that the alert for a hazardous materials, as it was in the past, is no longer relevant. Despite this, the plaintiff presented in the statement of claim a representation according to which she was trained to "prepare for hazardous materials".
- In practice, when the plaintiff was asked to clarify whether she indeed believed that she would have been suitable for carrying out a hazardous emergency alert, the plaintiff claimed that in terms of education, "I have a master's degree just like Doron." This, ignoring the fact that she received her master's degree in 2019, after the lawsuit was filed with the court and decades after Mr. Doron had already put on alert. The plaintiff also ignored the fact that she received her master's degree many years after her repeated requests for a hazardous materials alert and about two years after the structural change in the association. As for the experience in the industry, the plaintiff testified: "I have experience in the industry, I am in charge of the school center", when asked what a school center is, she replied:
"Control center, I'll explain here what I'm saying... And in terms of industry, I was in contact with the electric company and refineries for many years, because they would pass on their data to me... And I would do air alert." 106]