During a hearing held today (Tuesday) in the Labor Court on a restraining order filed by the director of the public broadcasting corporation “Here” Eldad Koblenz against his dismissal, another tap was revealed in his murky relationship with members of the corporation council.
Koblenz reiterated the allegations he had made in the past against the conduct of council members, directing the fire, among other things, at chairman Gil Omar. On his claims that the council threatened and belittled him and the vice presidents under him, he argued for interfering with budget items, including how many coffee capsules will be in the kitchen, talked about humiliations on the part of council members and attempts to narrow his steps.
At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Eyal Avrahami suggested that Koblenz and the council seek mediation, just as proposed by the Procaccia Commission. Kobletz agreed to the proposal, but the council rejected it.
It will be recalled that in the application for the restraining order, Koblenz argued that the dismissal hearing held by the corporation council prior to his dismissal was done for non-substantive reasons, and therefore should be set aside. According to him, the hearing process itself had flaws that required the dismissal to be revoked, and therefore in light of the totality of the flaws, the decision should be revoked. The application alleges that the decision of the corporation council to terminate Koblenz’s employment was made against the background of personal disputes and without any substantive substantiation, and for this purpose a proxy committee was set up, which examined allegations about the corporation’s management methods.
“Eldad kicked a bucket”
“Later in the discussion, the corporation’s chairman Gil Omer came up for questioning. To, except that Koblenz is unwilling to accept the council’s authority: “This is a acceptance of the council’s authority. There has been a systematic clear attempt to turn it into a personal dispute. I have no personal dispute with the plaintiff.” He said, “I think going to mediation between a public council and the CEO is not right. I thought there was a person who needed to understand that there is an organizational hierarchy, and if he is not capable, there is a problem here. ”
He said after the Procaccia report, it was decided to give Koblenz a chance to correct and there were no intentions to fire him. This is despite the fact that there was a council member who thought the report was so serious that he could not continue. Omar claimed that for him and for the council the very agreement to give Koblenz half a year to repair and cure was in order to move forward. “But what happened was that Eldad kicked a bucket. The opposition was very clear. We made a decision that we saw a bridge in it. Following this the prosecutor thought he had immunity and kicked a bucket,” Omar said.
Council member Michal Rafael Kadouri was later called to testify, who was asked about the determined and blunt style she used when referring to Koblenz at council meetings. Rafael Kadouri clarified that she voted against adopting the conclusions of the Procaccia Committee because she thought there were flaws in the conclusions.
During her testimony, it became clear that Koblenz had filed a complaint against her with the corporation’s internal auditor as if she had acted in a conflict of interest because she had business relationships with Haim Slutsky’s production company, which provides content to the corporation. Rafael Kadouri clarified that immediately upon her election as a council member she informed the Attorney General of a potential conflict of interest and a conflict of interest arrangement was made. The arrangement was brought to the attention of the relevant parties while clarifying that they are required to notify in advance when they bring to the council any issue related to Slutsky in order not to frustrate it and so it is done. “I assumed the complaint was on behalf of the plaintiff. I still think that when there is a reasonable CEO who thinks there is a council member acting in a conflict of interest he should flood it before the council and not keep it as a response to a hearing,” she said.
Severe crisis of confidence
Towards the end of the hearing, Koblenz’s lawyer, Ayala Honigman Lip, mentioned his success in founding the corporation from scratch despite political pressure. According to her, there should be exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that would justify such a severe injury to his name and his actions in the form of dismissals a year before the end of his term. She repeated her bewilderment at the reasons why Omar refused to go to mediation and claimed that it was indicative of a storm of emotions. “It is difficult for me to see how the dismissal of the applicant can benefit the public. The opposite is true,” Honigman Lip concluded.
While the council’s lawyer, Gideon Rubin, argued that there was a serious crisis of confidence between Koblenz and the council, that in this situation most council members believe he does not have the necessary skills to heal the existing labor relations in the corporation. According to him, the Procaccia Commission was not set up to frustrate Koblenz and terminate his employment.
It will be recalled that the report of the Procaccia Committee stated that there is a rotten organizational culture in the corporation, which includes, among other things, abuse and humiliation of employees. Referring to this, Robin said that contrary to Koblenz’s claim that according to the report his responsibility is as indirect as that of the council, he is directly responsible even if it is determined that he did not specifically abuse (although the lawyer claimed that the report also contained an allegation of abuse by Koblenz himself). Robin said Koblenz was responsible for the crisis by virtue of his role as director, and despite that, the council decided to give him another chance.
According to Robin, the crisis of trust between Koblenz and the council is incurable. He also referred to the spirit of Koblenz’s remarks at the hearing, from which it emerged that he had in his possession materials which he threatened to publish with the parties coming to court. He said, “The applicant has been doing his job for seven years and if he thinks councilors are incompetent I expect him to say and not threaten councilors.”
After the hearing, the judge announced that his decision would be given in the mail.