• Sentence

• Labor and Employment Law

The employer threw paperwork at the employee?

The court was not persuaded that there was abuse

The Labor Court recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by the employee over abuse and ruled that she herself used to shout.

Her claim that she was required to perform "degrading tasks such as replacing toner in the printer" was also rejected.

Tags

• Work relations

Adv. Yair Aran, in collaboration with Zap Legal

Thursday, 18 November 2021, 10:11 Updated: 10:23

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

Shouts (Photo: ShutterStock)

The Haifa Regional Labor Court recently rejected a lawsuit filed by an employee against its employer. The employee raised a number of allegations against the CEO in the lawsuit, including allegations of abuse and libel. The ruling stated that the employee was a strong and opinionated woman, and used to shout at herself around those around her

. At the same time as the company, he ran a business that he owned. Who is a prosecutor, a bookkeeper and payroll profession, employed in the company for three years, and also dealt with the accounting relating to the business of the CEO.

After serious allegations leveled against the employee that she talk back to suppliers and employees of the company, was the first fact hearing, which is required To change her behavior, however, shortly afterwards, allegations were again made against the employee, this time by one of the suppliers who claimed that the employee was shouting and being rude to him.

"You do not shout without a doubt, there is a way to get things done," the CEO wrote to the employee in an e-mail he sent to her, "I will not agree that you speak disrespectfully to anyone." Disturbing and slanderous "and added that she has no intention of answering him anymore.

More on Walla!

Supreme Court: The courts have almost unlimited jurisdiction over minority discrimination claims

To the full article

The CEO denied throwing paperwork at the employee

Relations between the CEO and the employee deteriorated, and among other things, she refused to collect documents from his room, claiming that he had previously "thrown documents at her" when she entered his room. In creating a hostile work environment, "abuse, libel, and the creation of repeated threats against me," including "throwing paperwork in my direction."

CEO denied all claims of the employee to abuse and employment offensive, and was the personal attention and the best received during the period of work. He added that the emails bots Masada indicate a desire to build a "Case" and demanded the staff to come the next day for the purpose of reporting to the authorities.

After that they should refuse it "Claiming that she did not work that day and had other obligations, he summoned the employee to a hearing before dismissal. Among other things, the reasons for the hearing included,"Demonstrating disgraceful personal treatment of suppliers and a sweeping refusal to work on Tuesdays, despite an agreement to do so according to the employer's needs. "

The employee was heard at length at the hearing, and a few weeks later, when she returned from sick leave, she was given the letter of dismissal from work.

"Confronted any employee who disagreed with her"

Against the background of her dismissal, the employee filed a lawsuit against the company, among other things for abuse, libel and invasion of privacy, along with the payment of various salary components that she claims she deserves, convalescence fees, travel fees and more.

The claim, a claim to the fact that as the claim will be, because the CEO was also her employer in his private business, the company should be required and that, together and separately, all amounts will be awarded.

The Court accepted the interesting fact that, despite the claim CEO That he never employed the employee directly and is not a shareholder in the company, stating that "the employee's share of the employee's work cannot be isolated from its overall work."

However, after hearing all the evidence and examining all the evidence, the court rejected the almost absolute majority The employee's allegations and, first and foremost, the allegation of abuse against her.

The court ruled that all the evidence showed that the worker was "a strong and opinionated woman who wanted to dictate how she and others worked and as a result used to confront any senior or junior person who did not agree with her opinion ... clashes with those around her were frequent and often loud" .

One of the employees in the CEO's office testified that the employee was constantly trying to take over the office and dictate the rules. .

"through its conduct had come shouting, noise and nerves", stating a fact witness. when asked when the employee was yelling, she replied she would scream at her worker and secretary, "we're talking between us and it really bothered her ... she was raging about it."

Another employee, who served as secretary, also testified about the employee's murky labor relations and the shouts heard from her: "She shouted at everyone who came in contact with her, she had zero human relations," she noted.

"Did not internalize the organizational hierarchy"

The Labor Court rejected the employee's claim that she was unlawfully dismissed and ruled that it did not find that there was any defect in the dismissal proceedings and that the plaintiff was given a full opportunity to address the allegations made against her.

The tribunal emphasized in its decision that the employee had difficulty accepting the CEO's authority and internalizing criticism on his part, and any of his remarks directed at her were “perceived by her as a burning insult.”

The tribunal emphasized in its decision that the CEO did not abuse the employee. Among other things, the fact that the CEO claims "tartar" her collection of documents related to work. In this regard, the Court ruled that the mere fact that by seeing this requirement C"trtor "indicates that not internalized the hierarchy in society.

Regarding a claim by the fact that the CEO "The court ruled that the incident had not been proven, but even if it did, it was not an incident that amounted to abuse, but a one-time incident in circumstances of anger or resentment, even against the background of the employee's outbursts to the CEO's

home

.

The law rejected the employee's claim that she was required to perform "degrading tasks such as ordering toner or paper for the office printer" and ruled that these tasks were part of the office routine.It was further determined that the CEO did not slam the fact of "false accusations".

Another allegation raised by the employee was defamation. According to the employee, the libel stemmed from placing the documents on the counter exposed to the eyes of employees, suppliers and customers. In

this regard, the court ruled that things were done in an employment relationship. where there is an employer to wake his subordinates. the Court held that the question whether the transfer of the documents to be scanned by a professional in the office is a publication of defamation, but even if this element is filled with - letters of summons to a hearing sheltering under the protection of good faith.

the Labor Court rejected the claim The employee that she was unlawfully dismissed and determined that he did not find that there was any defect in the dismissal process and that the plaintiff was given a full opportunity to address the allegations made against her.

The tribunal received a very limited portion of the employee's claims in relation to the payment of part of her working days and the redemption of her vacation days in the total amount of less than NIS 10,000.

At the same time, the court ordered the employee to pay expenses in the amount of this amount.

So in the end, she got out of the process, without any compensation being awarded to her.

* The author represented the CEO and the company in the procedure described above

.

Office of Aran Yair

: 053-9427327

courtesy of Zap Legal The

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email