From the general to the individual
- A review of the minutes of the second hearing shows that the plaintiff was offered alternatives that he refused to accept. Nothing happened either in the first hearing or in the second hearing. At the second hearing, an attempt was made to find suitable alternatives for the plaintiff's continued employment, which indicates the defendant's honesty and seriousness, and that they were considered and in accordance with the plaintiff's limitations.
- The plaintiff is the one who led his actions and statements to the termination of his employment and even then it was done lawfully, and therefore in this matter there is no reason to impose any compensation for the plaintiff's dismissal since we were under the impression that they are in accordance with the law. An analysis of the testimonies and file documents shows that after the first hearing, adjustments were made to employ the plaintiff in the morning shifts due to his disability. We adopt the defendant's approach, according to which the reason for the plaintiff's dismissal was one and only the plaintiff's disability.
- At this point, we would like to clarify that we have not been presented with any prima facie evidence of the defendant's desire to force the plaintiff to terminate his employment. The opposite is true. The defendant was full of appreciation for the plaintiff's work. She claimed that he was a dedicated and valued employee and at any point in time she was interested in continuing his employment, subject to medical restrictions.
- In light of the above, and after considering the positions of the parties, we determine that there was no defect in the manner in which the plaintiff's employment was terminated. We are of the opinion that this component should also be rejected.
- On the question of costs, although there was room to impose costs on the plaintiff due to the defendant's unnecessary dragging into the proceeding, and in light of the plaintiff's medical condition, we do not make an order for costs.
- The parties have the right to appeal to the National Court within 30 days from the date of the judgment.
It was given today, April 2, 2025, in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.