Pre-Termination Hearings in Israel - Practical Takeaways for Employers Following a Recent National Labor Court Ruling

On January 19, 2026, the National Labor Court issued a comprehensive judgment clarifying what constitutes a lawful pre-termination hearing in Israel and the potential remedies where material procedural defects are found.

In the case before the Court, the employer was ordered to pay NIS 55,000 in compensation (approximately 12 months of the employee’s salary) due to defects in the reassignment process, the hearing, and the dismissal itself.

While the obligation to conduct a pre-termination hearing is well established, employers may still face claims and monetary exposure where the process is handled in a manner that is rushed, inadequately documented, or gives the impression that the outcome was predetermined.

A pre-termination hearing is intended to give the employee a genuine opportunity to be heard before a final decision is made, particularly prior to dismissal. It is not a formality, a reprimand, or a “ceremony.” Rather, it requires a substantive, good-faith review of the allegations and of reasonable alternatives. The key practical guidelines reflected in the Court’s judgment are summarized below.

Prior to the Hearing: Defining the Genuine Grounds, Evidence and Alternatives

Before initiating the hearing process, it is advisable to conduct an orderly internal review to ensure that the allegations are accurate, supported, and presented in a way that does not suggest that a decision has already been made.

• Clearly define the grounds under consideration (for example: performance, misconduct, redundancy, lack of suitability, organizational restructuring, or medical limitations) and avoid conflating different grounds.
• Identify and organize the supporting facts and evidence (for example: correspondence, complaints, warnings, prior meeting summaries, measurable data).
• Where relevant, consider potential alternatives in advance (for example: a performance improvement plan, reassignment, accommodations, or shift changes).

Before the Hearing - Timing and Adequate Preparation

The employee must be given reasonable time to prepare for the hearing, including time to consult with advisors, collect documents, and prepare a response. Where an employee requests additional reasonable time, the request should generally be considered favorably.

In this case, the employee was summoned to a hearing while on vacation. The Court held that summoning an employee to a hearing during vacation may indicate a lack of good faith, as it undermines the employee’s ability to prepare and effectively deprives them of their leave.

This applies even where there is a dispute as to whether the vacation had been formally approved.

Before the Hearing - The Hearing Invitation Letter

The hearing invitation letter is a foundational document and may later be scrutinized as key evidence of the fairness of the process. As a practical matter, it is advisable to include the following:

• Concrete factual details of the allegations, including what is alleged, when it occurred, the relevant circumstances, who was involved, and how the issues are reflected in the employee’s work.
• Avoid vague assertions (for example: “refusal to follow instructions” or “insolent behavior”) without particulars and examples. In the case at hand, the Court criticized the absence of concrete examples and supporting documentation.
• Where multiple grounds are under consideration (for example: misconduct, competence, and performance), present them in a structured manner and clarify the relative weight given to each component.
• An explicit statement of the contemplated measure (dismissal or other action, if relevant), while clarifying that no final decision has been made and that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the employee’s arguments.
• Attach relevant documents, or at a minimum provide the employee with access to review them sufficiently in advance of the hearing.
• Use respectful, professional language. The Court emphasized that a hearing invitation is not a reprimand letter, and that aggressive wording may create the impression that the decision has already been made.

It is also advisable to state in the invitation letter the employee’s right to be accompanied and represented at the hearing and, where relevant, to refer to any rights arising under applicable collective agreements or workplace arrangements (particularly in unionized settings).

The invitation should specify before whom the hearing will take place, and the date, time, and location.

The Hearing Itself - Full Right to Be Heard and Avoidance of “Surprise Allegations”

The employee must be given a meaningful opportunity to present arguments, submit documents, and propose alternatives.

Material allegations and key documents should not be raised for the first time during the hearing. Doing so undermines the employee’s ability to prepare and respond effectively. In the case at hand, the Court criticized the employer for presenting during the hearing a complaint letter that was not referenced in the invitation, was not provided in advance, was unsigned, and in respect of which the employee was not given a proper opportunity to respond.

Where new information emerges during the hearing, it may be appropriate to adjourn and hold a follow-up session, or to allow a written response after the employee has had an opportunity to review the material, in order to preserve procedural fairness.

The Hearing Itself - Documentation

It is recommended to prepare a structured protocol reflecting the main points raised during the hearing and the documents presented.

Incomplete, inconsistent, or one-sided documentation may be treated as an indication that the hearing was not conducted fairly or that the outcome was predetermined.

The Post-Hearing Decision - Demonstrating Consideration of the Arguments

It is advisable to document the decision-making process following the hearing.

The termination letter should include basic reasoning and should address the employee’s principal arguments. In the case at hand, the Court criticized a terse termination letter that lacked substantive reasoning.

Where personal considerations were raised or taken into account (such as age, seniority or personal circumstances), it is advisable to document that they were considered.

Compensation Exposure - A Global, Circumstance-Driven Assessment

The above principles provide a general framework and should be applied in light of the specific circumstances of each case.

In the present matter, the employee was awarded NIS 55,000 in non-pecuniary damages for unlawful dismissal, after the National Labor Court increased the compensation awarded by the regional court from NIS 20,000 to NIS 55,000, having found material defects in the reassignment process, the hearing, and the dismissal itself.

In determining the amount, the Court considered, among other factors, the employee’s lengthy period of employment, her age, the parties’ conduct, and the severity of the defects in the reassignment, hearing, and dismissal procedures.

Based on the employee’s last salary, the award reflects approximately 12 months of pay. However, the labor courts have increasingly moved away from rigid, formula-based awards calculated by reference to a set number of monthly salaries, and instead tend to award global sums based on the overall circumstances (including the severity of the defects, length of employment, conduct of the parties, and personal factors such as age and seniority).