Cafe Ashdod published an article by Attorney Shira Porat Office of Afik & Co. on the good faith requirement in filing claims in the Labor Court
Press Publications

Cafe Ashdod published an article by Attorney Shira Porat Office of Afik & Co. on the good faith requirement in filing claims in the Labor Court

August 15, 2017

As an office that represents employers in the Labor Court, we often encounter claims that the background for filing is the employee's explanation that the Labor Courts tend to the benefit of the employees and do not incur expenses in the event of a dismissal of a claim. Thus, the Labor Courts are constantly dealing with teasing claims, both of employees and of jobseekers in such and other grounds, and employers are sometimes willing to compromise because their legal costs in defending these cases are greater than the claim. Two judgments given at the end of July, 2017, may indicate a new and welcome spirit in the corridors of the Labor Court in Tel Aviv-Jaffa, which may begin to require (even if low) expenses claimants.
At the center of the first verdict, a lawyer spotted a bakery ad looking for night shift employees. The lawyer accepted that the work was not suitable for women and filed a claim for discrimination on the grounds of sex in the job application. The Labor Court not only dismissed the claim, but ruled that the lawyer did not prove that she had any qualifications or experience in the field of work, and the lawyer's real motivation to apply for a job ad was a bad-faith attempt to establish a cause of action and to receive compensation without real intent to be accepted for work. In view of the plaintiff's lack of good faith and the abuse of the law, the Labor Court owes her a fee of NIS 10,000.
A second judgment, given by a judge a day later, dealt with an employee who was fired from her job while pregnant without her employer knowing at the time. The day after she was laid off, the employer withdrew her decision but asked to transfer to another position at the same salary. The employee refused to return to her job and sued her employer. The Employment Tribunal held that the manager of the managerial prerogative should manage his enterprise as he sees fit and in the process take into account the rights of his employees. Because the dismissal of the employee was made before she became aware of her pregnancy and because at the end of the employee's day she was not fired, there is no relevance to the cause of action of the employee, which is based on the question whether a worker was held before the dismissal or whether the employee is entitled to compensation. The Labor Court criticized the employee who thought she could get rich through a baseless lawsuit while illegally taking advantage of the Women’s Labor Act. The claim was dismissed while charging the employee with expenses and attorney's fees of NIS 7,500.
These may be coincidences or individual judgments within an ocean of judgments that make it easier for employees to take advantage of the courts' tendency to allegedly assist employees. However, this may be a welcome trend that will discourage workers from filing idle lawsuits, taking advantage of the various protective laws with the aim of becoming unlawfully wealthy. In any case, there is no doubt that the protection of workers 'rights must be ascertained, but these rights and employers' rights must be balanced against the abuse of protective laws.