They intimidated employees who joined the Histadrut — and were fined 500,000 shekels in damages
The National Labor Court rejected the appeal of the Dfus Offset Emmanuel company and upheld an unprecedented compensation of half a million shekels for violating the right to organize, as a deterrent.
A significant achievement for the Histadrut in the National Labor Court redraws the boundaries of what is permitted for employers regarding the right of their employees to organize.
In a ruling handed down by a panel chaired by the Acting President, Judge Ilan Itach, the appeal of the company "Dfus Offset Emmanuel" was completely rejected, and the Histadrut was officially recognized as the representative labor organization in the company. In addition, the compensation awarded in the regional court, in the amount of 500,000 shekels, for violating the employees' right to organize was upheld.
The legal proceeding revealed a series of serious incidents that occurred during the attempt to organize about one hundred printing house employees. In one of the most extreme cases, which the court defined as a "continuing event of high severity," only 17 minutes passed from the moment the Histadrut announced its representation until one of the key activists in the action committee was summoned to a hearing before dismissal.
Although the hearing was initially canceled following the Histadrut's demand, the employee was summoned again ten days later and was finally dismissed based on baseless claims. The company even tried to condition his return to work on his withdrawal from the organization, and filed a lawsuit against him that the court determined constitutes a "severe violation of the core of freedom of association."
Another case illustrated the problematic operating methods of the management. An employee who expressed support for the organization was summoned to a hearing before dismissal after only 20 minutes. At the hearing, it was claimed that the company was considering cutting his position as a cylinder machine operator. However, a recording of a conversation presented in court revealed that the manager admitted the company was actually looking for an additional operator. The court determined that this was an impermissible deterrent measure used against an organizing activist, contrary to the company's previous commitments.
The court also determined that the company's management exerted heavy pressure on employees to cancel their membership in the Histadrut by sending 37 cancellation notices on its own initiative. The court ruled that this was a blatant interference and that these notices have no legal validity, as they were received under pressure during the six-month "organizational stability" period.
The ruling clarified that the compensation amount reflects three separate and serious incidents of violation of freedom of association. The judges noted that the involvement of the management and the company's persistent refusal to sit down for negotiations on a collective agreement required the awarding of compensation that would provide effective protection and create a significant deterrent.
Advocate Hana Schnitzer-Rahav, head of the Legal Bureau of the Trade Union Division at the Histadrut, responded: "The ruling has reiterated the important message — employees have a fundamental right to organize, and this right is not subject to the employer's mercy. The Histadrut will continue to act legally against attempts to deter employees or harm them due to the exercise of their right to organize in the workplace."
