The Tel Aviv Regional Labour Court ordered DHL to immediately reinstate an employee who was fired after taking two board games from the company without permission. In its decision, the court ruled that the punishment was disproportionate and hinted that the dismissal occurred because the senior employee was a member of the workers' committee, which led a struggle over a collective agreement recently signed at the company.

The background to the dispute is an incident in which the employee took two board games distributed to employees for Family Day. According to him, he took the games with the intention of returning them to the human resources department, but the company viewed this as a severe breach of trust that justified his dismissal.

The Histadrut, which is the representative organization at DHL, claimed that the employee found two abandoned games – one in the restroom and one in the kitchenette – and took them to his vehicle to return them later. According to the organization, due to vehicle maintenance and various personal circumstances, the games were forgotten in the car and were not returned immediately. When summoned for a clarification meeting, he immediately admitted to taking the games and explained that he intended to return them. The Histadrut emphasized that this is a veteran employee with no disciplinary past, who acted flawlessly for years.

According to the organization, the company inflated a marginal incident into "theft" and a "crisis of trust" due to Levi's status as an active member of the workers' committee and due to his role in the negotiations for a first collective agreement signed at the company. It was further claimed that the temporal proximity between the collective disputes, the notice of a labor dispute, and the dismissal process raises suspicion that the dismissal was intended to harm the workers' unionization.

The company claimed, on the other hand, that there is no connection between the employee's activities in the workers' committee and his dismissal. According to the company, the employee took property that was not his, kept it for days, and did not report it. In addition, during the clarification and the hearing, he provided contradictory explanations and did not accept full responsibility for his actions. The company believed that this conduct created a "severe and deep crisis of trust", especially given his sensitive role and the access he has to information and systems.

The company emphasized that the decision was made solely based on relevant considerations and that an employee who is a committee member does not enjoy immunity from disciplinary proceedings or dismissal.

Judge Karin Liber Levin ruled that at this stage of the proceeding, the Histadrut proved that the balance of convenience tilts in its favor. According to her, when dealing with a member of a workers' committee, an increased burden is placed on the employer to prove that the dismissal is not related to organizational activity. The decision stated that while the employee did err in his judgment when he took the games to his car and did not report it immediately, it was not proven that he intended to steal them.

According to the judge, the company's response was disproportionate in relation to the severity of the act, especially given a tenure of nearly seven years without any prior disciplinary offense. It was further noted that the temporal proximity to the collective disputes, the employee's status as a committee member, and the absence of similar cases where other employees were fired under similar circumstances – lead to the conclusion that his dismissal was "tainted" by considerations related to his organizational activity.

Therefore, the court ordered the cancellation of the dismissal and the immediate reinstatement of the employee to his work, while paying his full salary and rights from the day he was placed on forced leave.

According to Attorney Dafna Shmuelevitz, a labor law expert representing senior employers (who did not represent in this case): "An employer experiencing initial unionization must adopt an inclusive approach when dealing with improper behavior by a committee member. The employer's conduct during the initial unionization period is scrutinized by the court under a magnifying glass, and even when a committee member breaches discipline, – the umbrella of protection provided to him is very broad.

"Since a committee member is perceived as a public emissary, even if there is justification for dismissal, the very act of taking it sends a chilling message to employees regarding the benefits of unionization. The wisdom is to act in a gradual and calculated manner against disciplinary violations by an employee who is a committee member, and to make use of more moderate punitive tools, while warning against harsher punishment if the offenses recur. A committee member who believes that he will always enjoy immunity and becomes a serial disciplinary offender – will eventually be fired, because he will be considered as one who abuses his status."