Overview
- The plaintiff claimed that her dismissal stemmed from extraneous considerations that were not detailed in the summons to the hearing and did not stem from the considerations detailed in the summons to the hearing. According to her, she is a professional, thorough, high-quality and responsible teacher, who was devoted to her students and to the school. The reason for her dismissal lies solely in her very requests and demands regarding the pay slip and the payment of the wage differences, and the defendant's refusal to demand them.
- The plaintiff claimed, and even proved before us, that about a month or two after she began her employment, she noticed that the pay slips did not contain any details of the components of the salary and the benefits paid. The salary is written on the slip as one gross amount, without distinction or separation or detail. Thus, there is no distinction in the pay slip between the salary paid according to the Oz Le-Reward Plan and the salary paid according to the Old World Plan; there is no distinction between benefits paid according to each of the programs; no salary components were specified, such as remuneration for double degrees, remuneration for filling hours, remuneration for additional work on a day off, remuneration for classroom education, compensation for concentration of trips, and more. In this situation, the plaintiff did not know and could not know what the salary amount consisted of and could not know whether she was receiving the full salary to which she was entitled.
- We are of the opinion that the plaintiff has borne the burden of showing that she was indeed unlawfully fired, while even in the framework of this proceeding, the defendant refrained from giving a dismissal and an explanation of the plaintiff's salary components, all as detailed in detail below.
The meeting was held on February 16, 2022
- The plaintiff requested to receive a breakdown of the salary components to the principal of the school, Mr. Klar. It was proven that the defendant had to wait about two months before he agreed to meet with her. The meeting took place on February 16, 2022, immediately after the semi-annual feedback conversation. The plaintiff stated that prior to her conversation with Mr. Klar, she conducted a number of tests, inter alia with the help of internet salary calculators that enable her to conduct a salary simulation according to the percentage of the job and according to the remuneration she is entitled to according to the Oz plan for consideration and according to the old world plan , but in none of the calculations and simulations she performed was she succeeded in reaching the salary paid to her by the defendant, but reached much more than that. Therefore, she concluded that her salary was not paid to her in full. Therefore, she asked for explanations from Mr. Klar.[8] The plaintiff's testimony is consistent with the conversations she had with Mr. Klar and the transcript of the conversations she submitted.
- It is evident that Mr. Klar did not know how and what her salary consisted of, and told her in general that he would look into the matter and give her answers. He also made it clear to her that she would not be given a monthly breakdown of the components of her salary in the pay slip. In his testimony, Mr. Klar was unable to contradict these statements.
- The transcript of the conversation dated February 16, 2022, which was recorded by the plaintiff[9], strengthens the plaintiff's claims. The transcript indicates that the plaintiff requested to receive a detailed pay slip that would be given to her every month on an ongoing basis. Mr. Klar explained that the pay slip in its current form thus comes from a system used by the defendant and other schools, and therefore it will not be more detailed. He promised to find out the answers to her questions and to answer them. To Mr. Klar's question as to why she was raising this claim only in this conversation, after she had already received a salary from September 2021, the plaintiff replied that she contacted Lilach, the supervisor, who did not provide a clear answer in October. The plaintiff explained her request to Mr. Klar clearly, as follows: "Okay, so I would like to, as if it seems to me that it is a perfectly logical requirement to request that I have a breakdown even if it is not in the slip that I have a written detail that will tell me September, we have set aside for you such and such a percentage for the remuneration of classroom education, we have set aside for you such and such a percentage for the concentration of trips, if it is not detailed and it is again, not from a place that is suspicious or anything else that may make money disappear from me, and even so, the salary as you see it is not in heaven and in such a situation I think that as far as I am entitled is that it will be written to me, that we will be able to follow up on it." Klar replied that he would try to find out what he could find out, but she would not receive a detailed printout. The plaintiff also noted to Mr. Klar that the pay slips did not contain details of tax credit points to which she was entitled, points of education and remuneration for concentration of trips, and that there was no mention of a double degree.
- The plaintiff added that the pay slip does not include remuneration for hours of filling, which she claims is overtime pay, which should be presented separately from the base salary. To this, Mr. Klar replied, an explanation that should be brought in full: "There is none, we do not pay for a change, for a change of place. .. And the reason for this: "Because it's very complicated to do, because we really believe that our working relationship is give and take, ahh, when you need something I don't take into account with you whether you want to travel, I don't consider it with you, I'm very flexible there, and in addition to that, what you don't take into account is that you get 75 minutes and two hours of instruction, about two hours of instruction is more than 75 minutes, But that's what you get, as if it was said, I think maybe it's important to explain, I, I'll tell you that I've been here for 5 years, it's the best and most pleasant and most reliable system I've ever worked in my life, and I've worked in a lot of frameworks and in a lot of schools, and I, I love what I do and I've never had any feeling that I'm being exploited, I do it for fun, "[10] And a lot of times we don't look at the good things we get from the workplace, we just look at what I don't get or what I am, that I feel I deserve, and that's a shame because you have to take the whole thing together and you have to make some decision whether it's good for me or not, and that's how our market works." [11] [12] (emphasis added. S.S.C.).
- In his testimony, Mr. Klar explained that by the words "complicated to do" he meant "... that this change of place I have to give you money because you worked more hours than expected. Now, as it was also proven in the affidavits, all the teachers never do their hours, even together with a change of place, so it is complicated to do it, you can bring everything, all the attendance sheets, you can bring all the changes of the system, and it never goes out in favor of the teacher, it always comes out in favor of the system." [13]
- We are unable to accept this explanation of Mr. Klar. The plaintiff is entitled to wages for all the hours she actually worked and she is entitled to know the calculation that was made in this matter. This is also the case with the provisions of the law. Moreover, the defendant did not prove this claim of Mr. Klar neither in relation to the plaintiff nor in relation to the other teachers[14]. In any event, even if she had proved this, it would not have been of any benefit to her, since the meaning is the payment of wages in value and not precisely. Moreover, the defendant did not even claim and in any case did not show that the plaintiff was entitled to a legitimate global wage that meets the conditions of the ruling, despite section 5 of the Wages Protection Law.
- This answer of Mr. Klar, according to which the plaintiff will not receive a breakdown of the components of her salary and will not receive remuneration for change hours, is unacceptable and deviates from the provisions of the law. The plaintiff did not agree to this and said: "If I, if my hours are deducted when I am not present but I am not added hours when I am full, then it is not a give-and-take relationship." [15] [16].
- After deliberations, it was agreed that Mr. Klar would return with a response within two weeks. The transcript shows that Mr. Klar expressed his anger that the plaintiff contacted him only in February 2022, but she explained to him that she had been trying to schedule this meeting with him for over a month, and in any case it was irrelevant because at the end of the day she did not receive the full salary she was entitled to.
- In his testimony, Mr. Klar initially denied that this conversation with the plaintiff had irritated him, but later admitted that it made him angry "... a new guard within the system telling me how to manage my time is annoying and I think it's very legitimate to say it... "[17]. He was then questioned and added that he was annoyed because the plaintiff did not contact him after the first salary[18]. Mr. Klar did not explain how the plaintiff's contact with him after the first salary would have changed his answer with regard to the details of the pay slip and the payment for spare hours, and why her request, in these circumstances, in which she did not succeed in making an appointment with him, led to his anger towards her.
Summary of the meeting from February 16, 2022
- After this meeting and in coordination with Mr. Klar, the plaintiff issued a summary of the meeting that day and sent it by email to Mr. Klar and two staff members: Noy Levy and Daniel Heiblum. Daniel replied to the plaintiff on the same day that it was good that she had contacted Mr. Klar, and in any case she would be able to answer most of the questions she raised. It was agreed that they would talk later.
- The next day, on February 17, 2022, Mr. Klar replied to the plaintiff: "Regardless of the content or the questions, I must say that the tone is unpleasant and disrespectful. I am sorry that you chose to issue an ultimatum to your manager and, in addition, to other staff members. I don't know of a world in which this makes sense. As stated, in his testimony, Mr. Klar initially denied that he was angry and that his answer was angry, and explained that what was unpleasant and disrespectful in the plaintiff's words was "a new reserve in her probationary year says I think a reasonable time to receive an answer is at most the next two weeks, it says again, even though you are my manager I tell you how to manage your time and in my opinion it is unlikely in any workplace." [19]
- We are of the opinion that Mr. Klar's interpretation of the plaintiff's words went too far – certainly when the defendant did not fulfill her duties under the law as an employer. Even if the defendant operates a pleasant school in which the teachers' conditions are good, according to him, this does not constitute an exemption from complying with the provisions of the law, and certainly not to express anger where a teacher insists on his rights.
Is this the ethos that the school wants to teach its students? Should the employee not demand his rights according to the law?
- We will add in this matter that despite Mr. Klar's interpretation, on the same day the plaintiff replied to Mr. Klar that this was not her intention[20] . We would have expected that his testimony would be moderated in view of this. In any event, we do not believe that the plaintiff's summary was written in an unpleasant tone and we did not get the impression that she intended to manage Mr. Klar's time. Nor are we required to discuss the plaintiff's pleasantness. All the plaintiff asked for was to receive an answer in a reasonable time, and Mr. Klar even agreed during the conversation that two weeks is a reasonable time.
- After this conversation, it appears that Mr. Klar conducted an examination in which he found that the plaintiff's teaching certificate was not updated in the profile at the Ministry of Education. On February 20, 2022, he asked the plaintiff to update her so that she could be approved for a salary according to the Oz Compensation Plan[21]. Apart from this request, Mr. Klar did not return to the plaintiff with answers after two weeks or at all.
The meeting was held on April 6, 2022
- Under these circumstances, the plaintiff initiated another conversation with Mr. Klar, which took place on April 6, 2022, immediately after the annual trip that she was in charge of. The plaintiff recorded this conversation.[22] The plaintiff presented the subject of the conversation as follows: "To talk about my paycheck, which we talked about almost two months ago, and until now I am short of money and I, I want to know where it stands." [23] Klar replied that the plaintiff's salary has two components: her profile and his report. Her profile includes all the relevant data regarding her salary and the terms of employment. Mr. Klar's report is: 12 hours of teaching and education in the seventh grade and 8 hours of eighth grade. Of these 20 hours, 12 hours are Oz for full compensation and 8 hours are Old World. As part of Oz for Value, she receives 10 percent for education and 6 percent for organizing trips. Mr. Klar could not say whether this percentage is received by the plaintiff from the sum of her entire salary (Maoz for Reward and Old World) or only Maoz for Compensation[24]. The plaintiff replied, rightly, that if the pay slip had been detailed, she could have easily known.[25]
- Our impression is that the argument between the plaintiff and Mr. Klar was, unfortunately, conducted "like a dialogue of the deaf". While the plaintiff raises the problem that the pay slip is not sufficiently detailed and it is not possible to learn from it what salary components she receives each month and their amount, Mr. Klar tries to exempt her by contacting the workers' union and the payroll accountant who will give her oral, one-time and principled information. Not specific to her working hours each month. Information that, even if it can be relied on on a specific basis, cannot be considered an acknowledgment on the part of the defendant because this is indeed the plaintiff's salary and therefore may be open to interpretation and disputes. Finally, it was agreed that the plaintiff would send Mr. Klar a breakdown of the overtime hours and the hours she filled the place, and he would consult and examine it and give her a reply within a week.[26]
The meeting was held on April 7, 2022
- The next day, April 7, 2022, Mr. Klar summoned the plaintiff for a conversation about the trip she organized. The plaintiff recorded this conversation. The transcript of the conversation[27] indicates that the school went on a three-day trip when on the first day there was difficulty in getting organized. The next two days went smoothly and the children had a great time. Mr. Klar chose to focus on the first day and said that all the difficulty and unexpected could have been avoided if the plaintiff had gone out for a preparatory day. He rejected the plaintiff's claims that two teachers had told her that there was no need for a preparatory day; that the subject of a preparatory day came up in one conversation that took place between them about two weeks before the trip and that no one had gone out with the plaintiff for a preparatory day, and it was also not possible to find time to hold it. Mr. Klar also complained that he expected the plaintiff to have a face-to-face conversation about the trip and ask questions and not just pass on the relevant documents and plans.[28][29] At the end of the day, the plaintiff agreed that there should have been a preparatory trip. The parties then moved on to talking about overtime pay and filling a place. The plaintiff reiterated her claim that she deserves compensation for overtime and for filling a place, while Mr. Klar reiterated his claim that the defendant has her own way of conduct, which he likes very much and that suits him, his personality, as he put it: "... It's not suitable for everyone, I had amazing people in Tel Aviv, and it didn't suit them. As if they preferred to go somewhere else where everything is much clearer, you could say square, as if everything according to every detail, that's also what they like to work like this. It's really not suitable for everyone. But it does have to be believed, I think you have to believe in it." [30]
- When the plaintiff insisted on her opinion and her right to pay overtime and fill a place, Mr. Klar said to her: " And again I will tell you that I think that on Passover, if you understand now, perhaps, this is how we conduct ourselves, then I think that on Passover you should think, as if it suits you." The plaintiff replied that she understood and they ended the conversation with a mutual happy holiday greeting.[31]
- It should be noted that in this conversation the plaintiff was at the end of her pregnancy and informed Mr. Klar that she was premature.
Summary of the meeting from April 7, 2022
- On April 11, 2022, Mr. Klar emailed the plaintiff a summary of the meeting [32], writing as follows: "The children enjoyed the trip and came back well. It is not easy to take a trip for the first time. You worked building the trip, and it is clear that a lot of effort was invested in building it. I thanked you for this in my weekly email and I very much appreciate the effort that was invested. However, I made it clear in our conversation that your choice to work alone, not to be helped and not to be consulted, and sometimes to choose to act contrary to my instructions (not to go on a preparatory trip), caused you an unnecessary burden and made it difficult for all of us to conduct ourselves. I have no doubt that a number of crisis events could have been avoided, which made it very difficult for the team and the management of the trip, if you had helped, consulted and worked more in cooperation with the management team and me in building the trip and in the decision-making processes."
- In this letter, Mr. Klar also referred to the issue of the plaintiff's salary, writing as follows: "In the conversation, you again raised questions about your salary. I gave you an answer to the question you asked me on Wednesday regarding the percentage of remuneration you receive. You also said that you feel that we require you to be present on days and hours for which you are not paid. I explained why I understand that this is impossible. I explained how we work. But for the avoidance of doubt, I asked you to give me a detail, so that I could look into the matter. Again, you said that you find it difficult to trust the system. Therefore, I also suggested that you check your pay slip with the teachers' union. I believe that the work of education is based on cooperation, trust and taking responsibility. Even though I trusted you fully in managing the trip and in general in the job offer, in the conversation between us you expressed difficulty in trusting me. The conversation between us about cooperation in the studio with the staff, about the relationship of trust as a basic component of working at Anchory, recurs once again. I see your investment, alongside the difficulty you experience in the studio on a daily basis. I once again introduced you to the way we choose to work at Anchory, and I asked you to think about it during the Passover vacation, out of a few months of familiarity with the studio, with its advantages and disadvantages, to think about whether you feel that this system is suitable and good for you. I want us to meet again to talk about it after the holiday. Thank you for the conversation and for the work."
- Beyond what is required for the purposes of a decision, we will briefly note that the plaintiff claimed that the summary of the conversation that Mr. Klar sent in his letter of April 11, 2022, does not correspond to the actual content of the conversation on a number of matters. Taking into account the transcript of the conversation that was submitted, we are not required to address the plaintiff's arguments on this matter. The transcript of the conversation[33] speaks for itself.
The meeting was held on May 24, 2022
- After the Passover vacation, another meeting took place between Mr. Klar and the plaintiff. The plaintiff recorded this conversation. A review of the transcript of this conversation [34]shows that when asked by Mr. Klar if the plaintiff had thought about their previous conversation on April 7, 2022, she replied as follows: "I have a lot of anger. A lot of anger, and a lot of resentment at the way you dealt with the things I say, yes. I expressed it in the conversations as well, he didn't pass, I still think that the way you acted is not a way that sees me, it's a way that sees the needs of the system, which are cold."[35]
- As for the cooperation in working with Mr. Klar and the team, she noted: "In terms of cooperation with the team, I don't feel that there is any problem, I work in full cooperation with Uri, with Tal, with Hagit when necessary, with Karin, now with everything related to the end of the year, and Orin and I have helped her a lot. I don't see, as if I need something else."
- In response to the plaintiff's remarks, Mr. Klar replied as follows: "... Because working like this and behaving like this is a situation, it's not just a problematic situation, it's almost intolerable. I hear it like, I asked you, and you say that you have a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, a lot of disappointment, and I think there's something like this that's a very problematic situation for both sides. It's as if at the end of a small school there's a lot of work for everyone, even with the system. You have to think about what to do. I prepared a letter for you, and there I listed a few things that I'd like you to think about, and we'll meet on Thursday." [36](My emphases – S.S.K.). The plaintiff replied that there is an easy solution to this situation, which is to "pay overtime according to the law, my demands are very, very logical, very."[37]
- The letter that Mr. Klar gave to the plaintiff is a letter of summons to a hearing before a decision is made regarding the termination of her employment.[38]
- Already at this time, we will clarify that from this conduct it emerges, in our opinion, that the plaintiff was indeed summoned to the hearing following her repeated requests to receive the details of her salary components on a monthly basis, a request that is not unfounded – and not from the reasons detailed in the hearing letter, as will be detailed below. We regret that an educational institution is of the opinion that an employee's insistence on her rights leads to the conclusion that it is not possible to work with that employee in cooperation.
Timing of the summons letter to the hearing
- The letter of summons to the hearing is dated May 24, 2022, i.e., the date of the conversation that took place between the plaintiff and Mr. Klar, and was given at the end of it. Naturally, the letter was prepared even before the conversation took place.
- It should be recalled that prior to the Passover vacation, Mr. Klar sent the plaintiff to consider the matter, but even before he clarified what her conclusions were following their conversation of April 7, 2022, which preceded the departure, and before he clarified whether she had considered, as he suggested, the advantages and disadvantages of working for the defendant (as he requested in the summary of the meeting that he issued on April 11, 2022),[39] Klar had already made up his mind to summon the plaintiff to a hearing before dismissal.
- The timing of the summons letter to the hearing indicates, in our opinion, that already in the conversation of April 7, 2022, Mr. Klar thought of terminating the plaintiff's employment with the defendant, and therefore in his words in this conversation he spoke about the fact that the work under the conditions offered by the defendant is not suitable for everyone, and that the plaintiff should ask herself, "What suits you, as if as a human being? And do you believe in it enough to make you feel comfortable here, and not with too many question marks?" [40] Already in this conversation, Mr. Klar hinted to the plaintiff that she should decide whether she was willing to continue working for an employer that would not give her detailed pay slips and would not pay her overtime pay and fill a place. Mr. Klar did not wait for the conversation with the plaintiff after the Passover vacation (May 24, 2022) and prepared the letter of summons to the hearing even before the call took place. Thus, at the end of the conversation on May 24, 2022, Mr. Klar gave the plaintiff the letter of summons to the hearing.
- 00The letter of summons to the hearing was given to the plaintiff while she was pregnant. Already in their conversation of April 7, 2022, the plaintiff told Mr. Klar that she was about to give birth. [41]
- The defendant claimed that after the plaintiff was summoned to the hearing, there was a sharp and severe deterioration in the plaintiff's conversation and conduct, and statements were made on her part that made it clear to the defendant that the plaintiff herself no longer sees her place in the defendant and would not be willing to work subordinate to the school principal. We did not find any evidence in the file to support this claim, and therefore it is rejected.
Content of the summons letter to the hearing dated May 24, 2022
- In the letter of the hearing, the plaintiff was summoned to a hearing before a decision was made to terminate her employment – for three reasons as follows:
The first reason, the defendant's unique approach, which is based on collaborative work, interpersonal relationships between staff members, and mental and operational flexibility, is not suitable for the plaintiff. In order to absorb her into the defendant, the plaintiff was offered mentoring and accompaniment from senior staff members in order to work and be assisted on an ongoing basis – but difficulty arose in coordinating facilitation meetings with her, and too many times the plaintiff chose not to be assisted and not to share with them the dilemmas, tasks and ongoing problems. As a result, the plaintiff was unable to create the necessary personal connection with the students in her class, to understand the nature of the discourse at school, and not to take responsibility for a student's departure from her classroom.