Pre-Dismissal Hearing in Israel: What Employees Must Know Before Being Fired

Most countries that foreign workers come from treat employment as a contract that either side can end on relatively short notice. Israel does not. Before an employee can be fired, the employer must hold a formal procedural step that gives the worker a real chance to speak — to explain, dispute, or propose alternatives — before a final decision is made.

The shmiath tviunot is one of the more unusual features of Israeli employment law, and foreign nationals working here consistently underestimate it — usually finding out about it only once it is too late to use it. For an employee facing dismissal, the hearing is not a formality. Handled well, it can change the outcome or at least establish a solid compensation claim. Ignored by the employer, it means paying out more than they expected.

What follows explains the doctrine, what it requires of employers, and what employees can do when a hearing is skipped, rushed, or staged.

1. The Legal Basis: A Doctrine Built by the National Labor Court

Unlike the notice period rules or severance pay entitlement, which are written into specific statutes, the shmiath tviunot requirement was developed entirely by Israeli courts. The National Labor Court (Beit haDin HaArtzit l'Avoda) built the doctrine over several decades starting in the 1970s and consolidating it through a series of rulings in the 1980s and 1990s.

Two legal foundations underpin it. The first is Section 39 of the Contracts (General Part) Law 5733-1973, which imposes a duty of good faith on all contracting parties. The National Labor Court has applied this to employment to mean that an employer cannot terminate employment without giving the employee a real opportunity to respond. The second is the natural justice principle — Israel's legal system, like the common law systems that influenced it, takes the position that a person facing a serious adverse decision has the right to be heard before it happens. In employment, dismissal is exactly that kind of decision.

The doctrine applies to dismissal, not to every disciplinary step. An employer does not need to hold a shmiath tviunot before issuing a written warning, reducing duties, or requiring the employee to switch roles. The obligation triggers the moment actual dismissal is being considered.

2. Who Has the Right to a Pre-Dismissal Hearing

The right applies broadly:

• All employees under a genuine employment relationship — full-time, part-time, hourly, salaried, or on a fixed-term contract
• Employees during the probationary period — the National Labor Court has required a hearing even for workers dismissed in their first few weeks, though courts accept a somewhat less elaborate process in genuinely short-tenure cases
• Foreign workers on any permit category — B/1 work permits, caregiver permits, specialist expert permits, and family-based permits all fall within scope
• Senior employees including directors and C-suite executives working under an employment contract

The doctrine does not cover:

• Genuine independent contractors who provide services under a commercial contract rather than an employment relationship — though misclassified contractors who are reclassified as employees will retroactively acquire the right
• Situations where the employer contends the employee resigned voluntarily — if a resignation is genuine, no dismissal occurred and no hearing is required; if the employer's conduct forced the resignation (constructive dismissal), the hearing requirement re-applies

3. What the Hearing Must Include

For a hearing to satisfy the shmiath tviunot doctrine, the National Labor Court requires several concrete things to actually happen.

The employer must give written notice before the hearing — not at it — stating why dismissal is being considered. The grounds need to be specific enough that the employee knows what they are responding to. "Performance concerns" without specifics does not cut it.

There must be adequate preparation time. Twenty-four to forty-eight hours is the absolute floor for a straightforward case; complex allegations involving accumulated conduct or multiple incidents require more. Employers who schedule the hearing for the next morning are building a procedural failure into the process from the start.

Evidence must be disclosed before or at the opening of the hearing — not sprung during it. Customer complaints, surveillance records, performance metrics, co-worker statements: if the employer is relying on any of it, the employee must see it with enough time to actually respond.

The employer must genuinely listen. A hearing where the decision-maker is cutting off responses, visibly distracted, or simply reading from a prepared script is vulnerable to challenge regardless of what the dismissal letter later says.

Finally, the outcome must genuinely be open. A hearing where the dismissal letter was already signed beforehand, or where the employer had already announced the departure internally, is not a hearing. The National Labor Court has been consistent: if the employer's mind is already made up when the employee walks in, the procedural obligation has not been met.

4. What Makes a Hearing Invalid

The Regional Labor Court regularly finds hearings invalid on these grounds:

• The employee is called to a meeting described as a "conversation" and told on the spot that they are being dismissed — no prior written notice that a hearing was even happening.
• The dismissal letter was already drafted and signed before the hearing began. Management had already informed other staff or clients of the departure. The hearing was a post-decision formality.
• The employer relied on CCTV footage, customer survey data, or audit findings but did not show these to the employee before the hearing and gave no real time to respond once they were shown.
• The hearing was run by an HR officer or junior manager with no authority to actually make the dismissal decision. The employee presented their case, and that person relayed it to a senior manager who never attended. Courts have found this inadequate because the person who heard the arguments was not the person who decided.
• The hearing was conducted in Hebrew without a translator, when the employer knew from the employment contract and prior communications that the employee did not function in Hebrew. This comes up most often with B/1 work permit holders.
• A six-month performance improvement plan ending in a dismissal hearing that lasted eight minutes, with the employer doing most of the talking, does not meet the standard for a genuine hearing of accumulated performance concerns.

5. Compensation When the Hearing Is Skipped or Invalid

Failing to hold a proper shmiath tviunot does not automatically void the dismissal. The National Labor Court's consistent position is that procedural failure and substantive merits are separate issues. An employer who had fully justified grounds for dismissal but skipped the hearing still owes compensation — the two questions are assessed independently.

What Regional Labor Courts typically award for procedural violation:

• Complete failure to hold any hearing: two to six months' gross salary as stand-alone compensation for the procedural breach
• Defective hearing (held, but meaningfully inadequate): one to three months' gross salary, depending on how severely the procedural requirements were missed
• Protected employee dismissed without a hearing or without ministerial approval: compensation significantly above the standard range, sometimes reaching a full year's salary or more; in some cases courts order reinstatement

These sums are entirely separate from and cumulative with:

• Statutory severance pay under the Severance Pay Law 5723-1963 (one month per year of service)
• Notice period compensation under the Advance Notice Law 5761-2001
• Any substantive wrongful termination damages where the dismissal itself was unjustified
• Accrued vacation pay, sick leave conversion, or other final pay components

6. Protected Employees: Additional Requirements Before Dismissal

Workers in certain categories face a two-layer requirement before they can be lawfully dismissed. Both layers must be satisfied:

Layer 1 — Prior approval from the Ministry of Economy and Labor (Misrad HaKalkalah v'Ta'asiya): The employer must apply to the Ministry for permission to dismiss a protected employee before giving any notice or holding a hearing. Protected categories include:

• Pregnant employees from the date of first medical confirmation until 60 days after returning from maternity leave
• Employees on sick leave who have completed at least six months of employment (under Section 9 of the Sick Pay Law 5736-1976)
• Employees on or within 30 days of returning from IDF reserve duty (miluim), under Section 26A of the Security Service Law 5746-1986
• Employees undergoing fertility treatments (tipulei harchamat habuya) and for 150 days after the last treatment cycle
• Trade union representatives in certain circumstances under collective agreements

The Ministry looks at whether the dismissal was driven by the protected status, or whether it would have happened regardless. Processing time at the Ministry's regional offices is typically 14 to 30 days; the Ministry sometimes holds its own hearing with both employer and employee before deciding.

Layer 2 — The shmiath tviunot hearing: Even after obtaining Ministry approval — or, in appeal cases, after a court has overridden a Ministry refusal — the employer must still hold a valid pre-dismissal hearing. The Ministry approval does not substitute for the hearing; it is a separate prerequisite.

Where an employer dismisses a protected employee without both steps, the dismissal is typically void (batel) rather than merely compensation-generating. Courts have the power to order reinstatement, and compensation in such cases often exceeds 12 months' salary.

7. How to Prepare for Your Pre-Dismissal Hearing

If you receive written notice that your employer is considering dismissal and has scheduled a hearing, these steps improve your position:

Before the hearing:

• If the hearing is scheduled with less than 24 hours' notice, ask in writing for a postponement. State that you need reasonable time to prepare a response. Most employers who are properly advised will agree; employers who refuse are building a stronger defective-procedure claim against themselves.
• Read the stated grounds carefully and prepare a specific written response addressing each one. A written response submitted at the hearing is far more useful than verbal remarks you may not remember accurately later.
• Gather documents: emails, performance reviews, positive feedback, client communications, or any other records that contradict or explain the grounds stated by the employer.
• Request (in writing) copies of any reports, audit findings, customer complaints, or other evidence the employer intends to rely on. You cannot respond meaningfully to evidence you have not seen.
• If you are a union member, request that your union representative (netzeg histadrut) attend. Employers cannot legally refuse a reasonable request for a representative to accompany you.

During the hearing:

• Take contemporaneous notes of everything said, including who is present, what grounds the employer states, and how your response is received.
• If the employer produces documents or evidence you have not seen before, ask for time to review them before responding. You are not required to respond on the spot to material shown to you for the first time.
• Keep your response focused and professional. The hearing is not the moment for general grievances about management style; it is the moment to address the specific grounds for proposed dismissal.

After the hearing:

• Send an email to HR that same day summarizing the hearing: when it took place, who attended, what grounds were stated, what arguments you raised, and any documents you submitted. This creates a record the employer cannot easily deny later.
• If the employer proceeds with dismissal and you believe the hearing was procedurally defective, consult an Israeli labor attorney about the grounds and value of a Regional Labor Court claim before accepting any settlement offers from the employer.

8. Foreign Workers and Expats: What Is Different for You

The shmiath tviunot doctrine applies in full to every person employed in Israel, regardless of nationality or immigration status. B/1 specialist work permit holders, B/1 general work permit holders, caregiver permit holders, and employees on accompanying or family-based visas all have precisely the same right to a pre-dismissal hearing as Israeli citizens. Section 1F of the Foreign Workers Law 5751-1991 voids any contract clause that provides a foreign worker with less than the minimum protections of Israeli labor law, which the National Labor Court has confirmed includes the procedural right to a hearing.

For foreign workers, though, dismissal has a second dimension that makes the hearing matter considerably more:

• Work permits in Israel are employer-specific. Once employment formally ends, the permit is no longer valid for that employer.
• Under Section 13A of the Foreign Workers Law 5751-1991, the employer must notify the Population and Immigration Authority (Rashut HaHagira, under the Ministry of Interior) of the termination within seven days of the employment ending.
• After that notification, a foreign worker typically has a short window — the precise duration depends on permit category and current PIBA policy — to transfer to a new employer's permit or to depart Israel.

This administrative pressure means a foreign worker's pre-dismissal hearing is often their only realistic opportunity to negotiate an alternative outcome — a transfer to another role within the employer's organization, a mutual separation agreement that provides time and severance to arrange the next step, or a settlement that converts a disputed dismissal into a voluntary resignation on agreed terms.

Foreign workers dismissed in a language other than one they understand also have a stronger procedural challenge available to them. If the employer knew from the employment contract, previous communications, or the worker's documented profile that the employee did not speak functional Hebrew, conducting the entire hearing in Hebrew without interpretation or translation is a factor courts weigh heavily against the employer. Requesting that the hearing be conducted in your working language, or with a translator present, is a legitimate procedural ask.