A company sought to dismiss a CEO who had served more than 200 days in the reserves and applied to approve his dismissal before the Employment Committee. After the committee approved his dismissal, the CEO claimed that there were flaws in the committee's decision and that the approval given to his dismissal should be revoked.
The Court rejected the motion and held that the committee's decision was made in a detailed and pertinent manner and that there is no justification for voiding it. An employee who is called up for extended reserve duty is protected from dismissal in order to prevent cases of unjustified dismissal by employers in light of absence due to reserve duty. In these cases, it is required that after the employer duly make a decision to dismiss the employee, it will apply for the approval of the Employment Committee, and the committee must conduct a quasi-judicial proceeding that examines the circumstances of the case and verifies that there is no connection between the employee's reserve service and his dismissal, and that there are special reasons justifying the dismissal of the employee during the protection period. Here, the committee conducted a detailed and reasoned procedure, including an examination of documents and affidavits submitted by the parties, and determined that the dispute between the CEO and the company's shareholders began prior to his reserve duty, and the company continued to employ him throughout the period of service in a manner that indicates no connection between reserve service and dismissal. In addition, the committee determined that there are special reasons justifying the dismissal before the end of the protection period, due to the sensitivity of the CEO's position, the lack of trust between the parties, and the CEO's actions, which were in complete contradiction to the instructions of the company's board of directors in a manner that thwarts the company's ability to continue its operations. Accordingly, there was no flaw in the decision of the committee that approved the dismissal of the CEO, and there is no reason to void said decision.