Labor Dispute (Beer Sheva) 26516-06-22 Reuven Moshe Sasson – Financial Case – Upper Cloth Massuot Yitzhak Ltd.

The lawsuit concerns whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the breach Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law, and whether he is entitled to compensation for "unlawful dismissal".  The plaintiff was employed by the defendant for more than five years, after his dismissal he filed a lawsuit, in which he petitioned for compensation for unlawful dismissal, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

Background to the Necessity for Our Matter

1. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant "Albad Massuot Yitzhak Company" in the position of "mini forklift transporter" from December 12, 2016 until the date of his dismissal on March 16, 2022. The plaintiff worked six days a week and his wages were paid on an hourly wage basis.
2. The defendant is a public tax appeal company registered and incorporated in Israel, which is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of wipes and wiping cloths, and employs about 750 employees in Israel and about 400 of them in the southern sites.
3. The plaintiff was employed in the morning, afternoon and evening shifts until March 2021. Shortly thereafter, he produced a certificate from an occupational physician (June 16, 2021) (hereinafter: "First Approval") according to which the plaintiff is fit to work as a transporter under the restrictions of night work and with the possibility of working morning and evening shifts only, while reducing exposure to stress during the shift.
4. Four months later, the plaintiff produced an additional certificate from an occupational physician (October 17, 2021) (hereinafter: "Second Approval") according to which in view of his health condition, he was fit to work the morning shift only until January 15, 2022.
5. After an additional 3 months, the plaintiff produced an additional certificate from an occupational physician (January 24, 2022) (hereinafter: "the third approval") according to which the plaintiff was fit to work the morning shift, with an emphasis this time, that heavy lifting should be avoided, for six months until June 30, 2022.
6. Against the background of the three approvals from the occupational doctor, the plaintiff was summoned to two hearings.
7. The first hearing was held on October 24, 2021 , in which an alternative to his continued employment was examined in accordance with the requirements of the second approval. After the plaintiff's arguments were raised, it was decided to continue his employment while making the necessary adjustments to his disability, and accordingly, he was allowed to work as a transporter in morning shifts only.
8. A second hearing was held on February 15, 2022, in which the plaintiff was offered two alternatives (according to the plaintiff, one alternative was offered), and in light of his refusal to accept the job offer in the morning shift, it was decided to terminate his employment.
9. On March 16, 2022, the plaintiff was given a final account, including advance notice and payment of all his rights.
10. On behalf of the plaintiff he submitted a single affidavit on his behalf, and on behalf of the defendant an affidavit was submitted by the production manager, Mr. Elad Hobra (hereinafter: "Elad")

Is the plaintiff entitled to compensation under  the Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law?