A judge at the Tel Aviv Labor Court altered the content from a law supposed to protect whistleblowers in public workplaces, denying the whistleblower assistance in finding new employment and lowering the amount of financial compensation.
In a verdict given last March, Judge Michal Naim-Dibner determined that the section in the Whistleblower Protection Law, which states that the labor court has the authority to issue an order directing the Civil Service Commission to find alternative employment for the whistleblower following the exposure of corruption at his original workplace, is not applicable.
The lawsuit in question was filed by Eli Yerushalmi, who was recognized as a whistleblower by the state comptroller and was even granted a whistleblower protection order. Now Yerushalmi is appealing this decision through his lawyer, Eran Golan. In addition, Yerushalmi is appealing the amount of compensation he received from the labor court, which decided to reduce amount of money he would receive, despite the fact that he was not found an alternative place of employment.
Nonprofit slams labor court over "rewarding" corrupt companies
The NGO Movement for Quality of Government in Israel wrote in response: "The result of the courts' reluctance is that in practice, a 'reward' is granted to organizations and managers who harass, and who only pay a financial price in exchange for 'removing' the employee from the organization. Moreover, in public companies, the compensation to the employee is paid from the public coffers and not from the pockets of those who actually carried out the harassment. Thus, there is no sanction whatsoever against managers and guilty employees in cases of harassment and firing due to an employee exposing corruption. There is therefore a danger in creating a negative incentive for employees seeking to expose corruption. The harassment of an employee exposing corruption carries destructive consequences for the employee themselves, who may pay heavy personal prices in terms of health, mental, economic, and family aspects. Whistleblowers experience severe isolation and real and dangerous mental distress, struggle with difficulties that arise with their families and close ones, and some suffer from various health symptoms which usually originate from the mental distress they are subject to.'"
The NGO also added to their request the opinions of Dr. Doron Navot, Prof. Francis Raday, and Prof. Menachem Amir, who wrote: "Unfortunately, a number of cases concerning the legal involvement in governmental norms and the implementation of the purity of values, such as political appointments, political agreements, and financial allocations to nonprofits, indicate that the court struggles to fulfill its important role even when it establishes correct and justified law. In other words, in many cases, a specific reference to a concrete case leads to unjustified interference by the court and to ignoring the policy it is required to enforce. The disappointing result is judicial decisions that do not advance the fight against corruption."