The employment law framework in Israel derives from several sources:

  • a legislation: statutes and regulations provide employees with certain minimal rights. Israel lacks a constitution and has Basic Laws instead, which are superior to regular laws, including the Human Dignity and Liberty and Freedom of Occupation Law;
  • b collective bargaining agreements: either specific or general. The latter may be extended by an order of the Minister of Economy to additional groups of employers and employees, or to all employers in the economy; and
  • c employment contracts: provisions of employment contracts will not be enforceable if they are inferior to those prescribed by law. Where several legal sources apply to an employee, the one that is most beneficial governs.

The primary means for resolving employment disputes are through the labour courts, parity committees (mostly established by collective bargaining agreements), internal courts that exist in several fields, arbitration and mediation.

The enforcement of employment laws may be conducted by several organisations and mechanisms, such as by the Enforcement Unit of the Ministry of Economy, specific legislative authorities, state authorities and the courts.


i Parental rights

In July 2016, an amendment to the Employment of Women Law 5714-1954 granted an increase in an employee’s entitlement to be absent from work for five days after his or her spouse or partner gives birth. The first three days are taken out of the employee’s annual leave entitlement (and where there is no outstanding entitlement, the days are unpaid). The remaining two days are considered as the second and third days of paid sick leave, to which an employee is usually entitled to 50 per cent of salary each day.

An employee is generally entitled to seven days of absence per year to attend a spouse or partner’s treatment or medical examinations relating to pregnancy or birth.2 These seven days come out of the employee’s sick leave entitlement. The two days of sick leave referred to above count as part of this seven-day entitlement.

Furthermore, until recently, an employee returning from maternity leave was entitled to one hour off work per day for the first four months after her return to work, without any deduction in salary (previously known as the ‘breastfeeding hour’). From 28 August 2016, following a further amendment to the Employment of Women Law, both parents can share this hour as they see fit (subject to compliance with certain conditions).

ii Pension changes

In April 2016, a new collective agreement was signed between the largest union and employers’ association in Israel regarding an increase in mandatory pension contributions. In May 2016, this collective agreement was extended to the entire economy by the Increase of Contributions for Pension Insurance in the Market Extension Order (the Pension Increase Extension Order).

Accordingly, from 1 July 2016, minimum employer contributions towards a pension arrangement increased to 6.25 per cent of ‘salary’ (instead of 6 per cent), and employee contributions to 5.75 per cent (instead of 5.5 per cent). From 1 January 2017, employer contributions will further increase to 6.5 per cent and employee contributions to 6 per cent. In addition, an employer is required to contribute a minimum of 6 per cent towards the severance component of the pension arrangement (although it is very common for employers to contribute 8.33 per cent).

The ‘salary’ on which percentage contributions are based is as stated in the employee’s contract, but it may not be less than the minimum required by law (the lower of the employee’s salary or the average salary in the market).


i Initial unionisation – employers’ actions considered

There is an accelerating trend in Israel towards the unionisation of workplaces, and not only in typical industries such as manufacturing. Recently, there have been a number of cases on the subject of initial unionisation, whereby the courts have promoted such unionisation by imposing significant limitations on employers when facing such demands.

The main case in this regard was the Pelephone3 decision, whereby the National Labour Court held that, in the early stages of unionisation, the employees’ right to unionise took priority over other values, including the employer’s freedom of expression. Accordingly, during the period of initial unionisation, statements and actions of the employer regarding initial unionisation were held to amount to undue influence on employees and were prohibited. The case was subsequently approved by the High Court of Justice.

In view of this fundamental precedent, it is important to note the recent judgment in the McDonald’s4 case regarding the initial unionisation of staff working at the chain. In implementing the Pelephone decision regarding the restrictions on employers’ activities where the workforce was undergoing a process of initial unionisation, the regional court gave a relatively narrow interpretation of the prohibitions that applied to the employer in this situation. An appeal on the case was struck out.

ii Internal employee representative bodies

A trend of attempting to establish internal committees at various workplaces has recently become evident, including at workplaces in which ‘traditional’ unions seek to gain a foothold. The cases of Amdocs5 and Menorah6 addressed the question of whether an internal employee representative body could be considered a genuine representative body, or whether it was essentially a committee working on behalf of the employer dressed up as such.

In August 2015, the Regional Labour Court in Tel Aviv ruled in the Amdocs case that the internal committee was not an organisation ‘on behalf’ of management, although it was also not an authentic union. The company could therefore not recognise the internal committee as the representative union, and could not negotiate or sign a collective agreement with it. The internal committee served an appeal to the National Labour Court, which was rejected.

The Regional Labour Court ruled in Menorah that even though the reason for establishing the internal committee was to prevent organisation by the General Workers’ Union, this did not in itself prevent recognition of the internal committee as the employee organisation. However, in this case, the internal committee still did not meet the conditions for recognition as such (as it did not have the necessary objective of signing a collective agreement).

On appeal,7 the National Labour Court ruled that where an internal committee has initiated its activities as a reaction against the union and not as a result of an authentic wish to conduct collective negotiations, any claimed change to its objective must be examined to determine whether it is real and reflects a commitment to stable, consistent and clear collective activity for the long term. Otherwise, the ‘employee organisation’ may fall apart shortly afterwards, when the previous attempt at organisation by the union can no longer be revived. The court found here that the internal committee did not meet the required burden of proof to demonstrate such a change in objective, and therefore it was not an employee organisation. However, the court did not decide the basic general question of whether an internal committee could be recognised as an employee organisation.

iii Retirement age

In April 2016, the High Court of Justice held in the precedential ruling of Professor Moshe Gavish,8 that Section 4 of the Retirement Age Law, 5764-2004, which provides that both male and female employees may be required to retire at the age of 67, is not unconstitutional.

The petitioners claimed that an employee’s abilities and qualifications cannot be examined according to his or her age, and that giving any weight to such details is discriminatory and degrading, damaging an employee’s right to equality and dignity, and in violation of the Employment (Equal Opportunities) Law 1988. On the other hand, the defendants (the Israeli parliament, Finance Minister, General Attorney and Technion University) claimed that this was a social and financial matter, and a unified retirement age in many ways benefits employees, and it doubted that it could harm a constitutional right.

The High Court of Justice ruled that the provisions of Section 4 are constitutional. It considered that alternative retirement models, such as those which examine an individual’s abilities, are not free from difficulties. It also referred to the National Labour Court ruling in Weinberger,9 which stated that to limit the damage to employees reaching retirement age, employers must consider the continuation of their employment on an individual basis. It approved the Weinberger ruling, emphasising that it correctly balanced the needs of the various ‘players’ in the employment field, softening the compulsory retirement model without dismissing it.


i Employment relationship

Generally, Israeli law does not require a written employment contract, subject to certain exceptions.

However, employers are required to provide new employees (and existing employees upon their request) with a written notification form regarding certain employment terms and to update them in writing regarding any changes to them, as detailed in the Notice to Employee and Job Candidate Law (Employment Conditions and Candidate Screening and Selection), 5762-2002 and the relevant regulations.

An employer is not obligated to provide such notification if the employee is provided with a written employment agreement that includes all the required details.

Employment contracts may be for a fixed term or an indefinite term, at the parties’ discretion. The termination of a fixed-term contract, prior to its expiration, may entitle the other party to damages in the amount of the salary for the remaining term.

ii Probationary periods

Probationary periods are permitted by Israeli law, but during such time, an employee would still be considered a regular employee for all intents and purposes. The minimum statutory written prior notice for a monthly employee10 is one day for each month during the first six months of employment, and 2.5 days for every additional month. A monthly employee who has worked for a year or more is entitled to one month’s prior notice.

iii Establishing a presence

In general, a foreign company can hire employees directly in Israel without being required to officially register a subsidiary company or a registered branch in Israel. However it will be required to be registered with the tax authorities as an employer.

A foreign company can also engage individuals as independent contractors or as service providers through manpower companies or service contractors. In principle, a foreign employer who employs employees directly is required to comply with local employment legislation. In addition, the foreign company has withholding obligations to the tax authorities as the employment income is subject to income tax, social security contributions and health tax.

Generally, the engagement of individuals (whether as independent contractors or as employees) by a foreign company may create a permanent establishment exposure to that company in Israel. The main outcome of such exposure is that amounts attributed to the Israeli permanent establishment will be subject to Israeli corporate tax.


Non-compete restrictions during and after the employment relationship are common in employment agreements.

During the employment period, limitations imposed by an employer on an employee’s freedom of work are likely to be enforced, if the employee is in a full-time position.

However, post-termination non-compete restrictions are rarely enforced. An employee would be prohibited from competing with a former employer only if it may harm a legitimate interest of the employer.11 According to case law, non-compete covenants will not be enforced other than in specific circumstances, when:12

  • a the former employer owns a trade secret that is unlawfully used by the employee;
  • b the former employer has invested unique and valuable resources in the employee’s training;
  • c on termination of the employment, the employee has received special consideration in return for his or her non-compete undertaking; or
  • d when balancing the employee’s conduct and good faith in taking the new position and his or her obligation of fidelity towards the former employer, the non-compete covenant can be justified.

Even if the court decides to enforce a non-compete covenant, the enforcement would only be with respect to an obligation that can be considered reasonable given the scope of the employee’s position; the period of the restriction; the field in which the employer operates; and the relevant geographical limitation. Accordingly, the court can redraft the non-compete obligation to make it reasonable.13

VI Working hours and overtime

i Working time

The issue of working hours and overtime is governed by the Hours of Work and Rest Law, 5711–1951 (Hours of Work Law), and additional legislative sources, such as Extension Orders.

By virtue of an Extension Order, effective as of July 2000, in general the workday in Israel consists of 8.6 hours per day, 43 hours per week and 186 hours per month.

According to the Hours of Work Law, ‘night work’ is considered as work during a period of not less than two hours between 10pm and 6am. Night work must not exceed seven hours (not including overtime), and an employee must not carry out night work for more than one week in every three.

ii Overtime

There are limits to the amount of overtime that may be performed in a given period, other than for employees who are excluded from the Hours of Work Law (under exceptional circumstances).

Overtime compensation must be paid after working 8.6 hours per day or 43 hours per week. For the first two hours of overtime, an additional 25 per cent is paid per hour; and for the third hour of overtime and thereafter, an additional 50 per cent per hour.

Where a business operates a six-day workweek, employees may work up to 12 hours’ overtime per week; and where a business operates a five day workweek, employees may work up to 15 hours’ overtime per week.


An Israeli employer may employ a foreign employee in Israel provided that:

  • a the employee has an unrestricted visa allowing him or her to work in Israel regardless of the employer’s identity; or
  • b the employer has a permit to employ a foreign employee who has a visa based on a permit.

The permit is usually issued for 12 months and can be extended, subject to the discretion of the relevant authorities, for additional 12 month periods, up to a maximum of five years. Permits can also be issued for periods of up to 45 days, three months or two years.

In general, permits are granted in five areas: construction, agriculture, nursing, services and industry. A common type of B-1 permit is a permit to employ ‘foreign experts’ in which:

  • a the foreign expert must demonstrate a high degree of expertise or unique and essential knowledge to the service provided by the employer, that is absent in Israel; and
  • b his or her monthly salary shall not be less than twice the average salary in Israel (approximately US$5,000 per month).

An employer may employ an unrestricted number of foreign employees who do not require a permit. There is no limitation on the number of permits that can be applied for by the employer. However, the authorities will take into consideration the number of foreign employees employed by the employer compared to the total number of its employees.

Employment of foreign employees in Israel is subject to local labour legislation, including collective agreements (when applicable), and extension orders.

The duties of employers employing foreign workers include providing medical insurance for the foreign employee, and in some cases accommodation. In addition, the employment can be subject to a special tax in which the employer should pay up to 20 per cent tax in addition to the taxes which apply to any employee, except in certain cases, such as where the employee earns more than double the average salary in Israel.


There is no mandatory requirement for applying disciplinary rules. However, such rules are quite common in unionised workplaces (as part of a collective agreement with the employee representative committee) and in companies that are subject to global policies in light of being part of a group of companies. Disciplinary rules are regarded as part of the employee’s terms of employment.

There are mandatory rules and policies that an employer is required to adopt, such as the model rules for the prevention of sexual harassment according to the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Regulations, 5758-1998.

In general, disciplinary rules are not required to be filed with or approved by any government authorities, but they should comply with applicable law and general legal principles.

Generally, in order for disciplinary rules to apply to employees, the employees should consent to them, either explicitly or implicitly. It is recommended that the employer’s rules be accessible to the employees (such as on the employer’s bulletin board or intranet site) to reduce claims that the employees were not aware of them (or any amendment to them).

Disciplinary rules are not required to be written in the local language. However, they should be in a language that the employees understand.


There is no requirement that employment contracts be written in any specific language, as long as the employee understands the language (except with regard to foreign employees, where the Foreign Employees Law, 5751-1991 expressly provides that the employment contract should be written in a language the employee can understand). In this respect, it is common for global companies to provide employment-related documents (including employment contracts and confidentiality agreements) in English, mainly for them to be understood by the company’s management abroad.

There is no clear recommendation on whether or not to provide employment documents in Hebrew, and the decision usually depends on the employees in the company and the extent of their knowledge of the foreign language.

Providing employees with employment-related documents in a language they do not understand may result in employees claiming that they are not subject to their terms (as they did not understand them), and may impact the employer’s ability to enforce them.


Employees are permitted, but not required, to establish a union if none currently exists. The right of unionisation is regarded as a fundamental right of employees.

For the purpose of defining the representative organisation in the workplace, the general rule is that in a specific workplace there should be one ‘bargaining unit’, meaning that at least one third of the total employees are members of the union. Splitting the natural bargaining unit can be done consensually by the bargaining parties – the union and the employer.

The election procedures for representatives are set out in the articles of association of each union or employee committee.

The length of the term of the representative committee may change from one committee to another, in accordance with its articles of association.

Employees have the following main rights with respect to unionisation:

  • a a general right to enrol as members of a trade union and to authorise the union to act on their behalf;
  • b the law defends this right by prohibiting the employer from preventing any trade union representative from entering the workplace in order to organise the employees and advance their interests; and revoking or reducing any employee rights, including terminating employment, on the ground of an employee’s membership or activity within a trade union or on the grounds of his or her activity in establishing a representative body in the workplace;
  • c the National Labour Court has also ruled that, during initial unionisation, the presumption is that the expression of the employer’s opinion could exert pressure that may constitute an unjustified influence on the employees. Therefore, an employer is not allowed to publicly express its views against the organisation of its employees, let alone take any action in an attempt to avert it;14 and
  • d the trade union can also potentially declare a work dispute and initiate a strike (see below).

The law stipulates that the employer has an obligation to negotiate with the union in the initial stages of its formation in the workplace, with respect to any of the following: hiring and firing; termination of employment; employment terms and conditions; and the rights and obligations of the trade union. The law, however, emphasises that this requirement does not obligate the employer to sign a collective bargaining agreement with the trade union, but rather solely requires the employer to negotiate with the union.

In workplaces in which collective relations are already established, the employer is obligated to negotiate with the representative trade union with respect to various specific employment matters, including the engagement, termination and terms of employment. To the extent that the employer does not respond to the employees’ demands and refuses to sign a collective bargaining agreement, the trade union can potentially declare a work dispute and initiate a strike.


i Requirements for registration

The Privacy Law, 5741-1981 (Privacy Law) regulates the matter of databases and their registration. The Privacy Law defines a ‘database’ as ‘a collection of data, maintained by magnetic or optical means and intended for computer processing’.

‘Data’ is defined under the Privacy Law as ‘information about an individual’s personality, personal status, intimate affairs, health condition, financial condition, professional qualifications, opinions or beliefs’.

Under the Privacy Law, it is necessary to register a database if, inter alia, it:

  • a contains information on more than 10,000 individuals;
  • b contains sensitive information (see below);
  • c contains information about persons, which was not provided by them, on their behalf or with their consent; or
  • d is used for direct mailing.

Human resource databases in workplaces are generally considered to include sensitive information and, consequently, should be registered according to the Privacy Law. In addition, no person may use the information in a registered database except for the purposes for which it was established.

Under the Privacy Law, the owner of a database, the holder of a database and the manager of a database are each individually responsible for the protection of the data in the database. The Privacy Law defines ‘data protection’ as protection of the integrity of the data, or protection of the data against exposure, use or copying, all when done without due permission. It is customary to limit access to a database to individuals who have reasonable needs to use the information included in such database.

ii Cross-border data transfers

The export of data outside of Israel from a database within Israel is regulated by the Protection of Privacy Regulations (The Transfer of Information to a Database Outside the State Borders), 5761-2001. The regulations prohibit the transfer of data from a database in Israel to a database located abroad, unless the receiving country ensures a level of protection of data that is not lower than the protection provided for under Israeli law.

In addition, the regulations lay down conditions that enable the transfer of data from a database in Israel to a database abroad, even when the overseas law provides a level of protection that falls below that which is provided under Israeli law. These include, for example, obtaining the individual’s consent to the transfer of the data; that the data is transferred to someone who has agreed to fulfil the conditions laid down in Israel; etc.

In addition to the conditions, the regulations state that the owner of the database must ensure (by way of written obligation), that the recipient takes steps to ensure privacy of data subjects, and that the data shall not be transferred to any other person. Accordingly, onward transfer of information to a third party is not permitted, unless the owner of the database entered into a direct agreement with such third party, which includes, inter alia, the above requirements.

iii Sensitive data

Under the Privacy Law, ‘sensitive data’ is defined as ‘data on a person’s personality, intimate (i.e., private) affairs, state of health, financial conditions, opinions and beliefs’. ‘Sensitive data’ is interpreted very broadly by the Israeli courts, as encompassing types of personal information that are not specifically mentioned in the definition of ‘data’ or ‘sensitive data’, all depending on the specific circumstances of the matter.

If the company maintains sensitive data by electronic means for processing, it is required to register a database.

iv Background checks

Candidate background checks must respect the individual’s right to privacy and be reasonable, relevant, proportionate, and carried out in good faith.

For publicly available information, there is no specific requirement for obtaining an individual’s consent. For non-public information, the need for prior written notice and informed consent depends on the circumstances.

Requesting information with respect to protected criteria under the Employment Equal Opportunities Law, 5848-1988 (e.g., re race, gender, age, religion, etc.) will usually shift the burden of proof to the company in the event of a discrimination claim, to show that it did not unlawfully take into account any such protected criteria in making the employment decision.

Criminal background checks are generally not permitted. Even requesting a candidate to provide a declaration about his or her criminal history is regarded as unlawfully circumventing the legislation, unless the employer specifies about which type of offences or investigations it requires information, and demonstrates that this is relevant for the position in the circumstances.

According to the Credit Information Services Law, 5762-2002, an employer is entitled to receive a report regarding a candidate’s ‘credit information’ from a licensed authority, for employment purposes where relevant to the position. There is only a need to notify the candidate if the employer decides, based on the credit report, not to hire him or her.

It is forbidden to request information regarding military and genetic profiles.


i Dismissal

As a general rule, employers must exercise their right to terminate an employee’s employment in good faith, for valid reasons,15 and in compliance with applicable laws, any written employment contracts, workplace customs, and collective bargaining agreements or extension orders, if applicable.

In addition, according to court decisions, all employers are required to hold a hearing prior to making a decision regarding the termination of employment. The purpose of the hearing is to inform the employee of the employer’s reason and give him or her the opportunity to respond. A hearing is required in all circumstances, regardless of whether the dismissal is based on redundancy, poor performance or misconduct.

In certain circumstances, terminating employment may be prohibited or subject to obtaining ministerial approval.16 Israeli law prohibits the termination of certain groups of employees, such as pregnant employees; employees expecting to adopt, become foster parents, or become parents with the assistance of surrogacy; employees undergoing fertility treatment; employees on maternity or paternity leave and for 60 days thereafter;17 employees on army reserve duty;18 and employees on sick leave.19

In workplaces where collective relations exist or a collective bargaining agreement or extension order applies, the process of termination, which is often included therein, usually involves the participation of employee representatives.

In general, employees are not entitled to a social plan or rehire rights by law.

According to some court decisions, in certain circumstances, prior to making a decision regarding termination of employment, employers are required to consider whether they can offer the employee an alternative position within the workplace.

Under Prior Notice Before Termination Law, 5761-2001 employers must provide the employee with prior written notice when ending the employment relationship. An employer may choose to pay the employee in lieu of notice. Payment in lieu is equal to the salary the employee would have received, had the employee continued to work throughout the notice period.

Under Severance Pay Law, 5723-1963 an employee who is dismissed after completing at least one year’s service is entitled to statutory severance pay. This is calculated based on the employee’s monthly base salary multiplied by the number of years of service.

In general, employees can compromise contractual payments or benefits only if these entitlements are over and above statutory entitlements.

Furthermore, it is common for employers to request employees to sign a letter of receipt of their final payments and a release of claims against the employer. According to case law, a release does not constitute a formal bar to future claims by employees. However, it may be enforced if certain conditions are met, such as:

  • a the employee was aware of the rights that he or she waived;
  • b the employee was presented with a clear and comprehensible account of the sums he or she received before signing the release;
  • c the release is clear and unambiguous; and
  • d the employee signed the release of his or her own free will and not owing to coercion by the employer.
ii Redundancies

As a general rule, Israeli case law requires an employer to inform and consult with employees with respect to redundancies. However, Israeli law does not specify the form, timetable or content of these obligations. If a collective bargaining agreement, or any other binding legal document, applies to the affected employees, it may set out specific procedures for redundancies, including the bodies the employer must consult.

In the absence of specific provisions, there is a general duty to carry out consultation in good faith before any final decisions are made. In general, the employees should be provided with relevant information regarding the anticipated dismissals, such as, for example, general information regarding the financial situation of the employer when the redundancies need to take place due to lack of profit.

In practice, the obligation to inform and consult with employees is only practical where an employee representative body exists and can therefore be consulted.

The obligation to inform and consult with employees does not detract from the employer’s general obligations with respect to the termination of employment, including holding personal hearings with each employee.20 Thus, employees whose contracts are terminated by reason of redundancy each have the same personal rights as any other employee whose employment is terminated.



There are no ‘TUPE’-type regulations in Israel (TUPE referring to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006). In principle, an employee cannot be transferred to another employer without his or her consent. Therefore, if an employee does not consent to the transfer, the seller would either continue the employment of the employee or terminate the employee’s employment.

In practice, there are two methods of transferring employees, for example, on the sale of a business:

  • a ‘fire and rehire’, in which the original employer terminates the employees’ employment and the new employer rehires them; and
  • b ‘continuity of rights’, in which the buyer ‘steps into’ the seller’s position as employer for all intents and purposes. In such circumstances, subject to the employees’ consent to the transfer, the buyer assumes all the seller’s obligations towards the employees while maintaining their rights and entitlements.

When there is an active union or works council at the workplace, employers need to inform employees about the forthcoming change, and consult and negotiate with regard to their employment terms after such change.

The National Labour Court recently issued an important ruling, stating that the original employer is required to provide its employees with prior notice of termination (or pay in lieu of notice), even if the new employer is willing to hire the employees and continue their employment immediately following the termination.21


As is clear from Sections II and III above, employers in Israel are facing a range of new challenges as a result of increasing regulation, whether introduced by way of legislation, the extension of collective agreements to the entire Israeli market, or from the impact of judicial decisions.

i Increase in shared parental rights

As we have seen from recent amendments to legislation on parental rights, the evolution of laws to advance and protect women in the workplace is continuing in Israel. There is a clear and growing move away from ‘mother only’ rights to parental rights. We note that even the terminology used within the law has been officially changed – from ‘maternity leave’ to the ‘birth and parenting period’, and from ‘breastfeeding hour’ to ‘parenting hour’. We have no doubt that this trend will continue to grow and develop in the coming years.


ii Unionisation

Case law continues to evolve on the matter of initial unionisation and the limits that apply to the words and actions of employers at each stage in the process of unionisation. We can also expect a further examination of the trend of establishing ‘internal employee committees’ and the extent to which they may yet become a viable alternative to the more traditional union-led representative body.

iii Pension developments

The past year has seen the implementation of many reforms in the pension arena, including increases in employer and employee contribution rates, which will increase further on 1 January 2017. There is still a lack of clarity and many open questions about the changes, in particular to do with reconciling some of the conflicting legal requirements relating to pension and severance pay arrangements. We expect to obtain greater clarity and certainty over the next year.


1 Orly Gerbi is a senior partner and head of the labour and employment law department, Maayan Hammer-Tzeelon is a partner and Nir Gal and Marian Fertleman are senior associates at Herzog Fox & Neeman.

2 Sick Pay Law (Absence due to Pregnancy and Birth of Spouse), 5760-2000.

3 ASK 25476-09-12 New General Workers’ Union v. Pelephone Communications Ltd and other (2 January 2013).

4 SK 31826-10-14 New General Workers’ Union and other v. Aloniel Ltd and other (6 May 2015). ASK 40548-05-15 New General Workers’ Organization v. Alonyal Ltd (24 November 2015). Appeal removed.

5 SK 42367-05-15 The New General Workers’ Union v. Amdocs Israel Ltd (9 June 2015). ASK 52823-08-15 Amdocs Worker’s Organization v. New General Workers’ Organization (7 September 2015). Appeal rejected.

6 SK 34304-05-15 The New General Workers’ Union v. Menorah Insurance Company Ltd (29 September 2015).

7 ASK 7731-10-15 The New General Workers’ Union v. Menorah Insurance Company Ltd (31 January 2016).

8 Professor Gavish and others v. the Knesset and others, High Court of Justice 9134/12.

9 Weinberger v. University of Bar Ilan LA 209/10.

10 Under the Prior Notice of Termination Law 5761-2001, a monthly employee is an employee whose remuneration for his or her work is mainly paid on a monthly basis.

11 LA 164/99 Frumer v. Radguard Ltd PDA 34, 294 (1999); CA 6601/96 AES Sys Inc v. Saar PDI 54 (3), 85 (2000).

12 LA 164/99 Frumer v. Radguard Ltd PDA 34, 294 (1999).

13 CA 6601/96 AES Sys Inc v. Saar PDI 54 (3), 85 (2000).

14 See Pelephone decision, supra footnote 2.

15 Valid reasons for dismissal may include poor performance, redundancy and disciplinary action.

16 Ministerial approvals for the termination may be obtained in certain circumstances if the employer demonstrates that the termination is not due to the special circumstances of the employee (for example, the employee being pregnant).

17 Employment of Women Law, 5714-1954; Ministerial approval is required for all the above mentioned groups.

18 The Discharged Soldiers (Reinstatement in Employment) Law 5709-1949. In general, unless a ministerial permit is granted in advance, the termination of an employee’s employment during military reserve service is prohibited, as is termination within 30 days of reserve service lasting longer than two days.

19 Under Sick Pay Law, 5736-1976, employers are prohibited from terminating the employment of an employee who is absent from work due to an illness during the period in which the employee is utilising his or her accumulated sick leave.

20 See Section XII.i, supra.

21 LA 28597-03-11 Dabush v. Yardeni holdings locks (2005) Inc (11 February 2015).