When an employer summons an employee to a hearing, it is required to conduct a fair process in which it listens with an “open heart and a willing mind” to the employee’s arguments before making a final decision on whether to proceed with dismissal.
However, a review conducted at the end of 2025 among about 150 employers and hundreds of hearings found that 98% of employee hearings end in dismissal.
The review found that in the vast majority of hearings examined in a new survey by Oketz Systems conducted at the end of 2025, the process concludes without any change to the decision that had taken shape in advance.
According to the survey data, only about 2.1% of hearings over the past year ended with continued employment — 12 employees out of 567. This was the third survey the company has conducted on the subject over the past 12 years, with an average across all three surveys of about 2.4% of hearings ending with the employee remaining in their job.
The survey by Oketz Systems was based on information provided by payroll clerks and human resources managers, who were asked, among other things, to report the outcome of the hearing, namely whether a decision was ultimately made to dismiss the employee.
Israeli court rulings have repeatedly emphasized that a hearing before dismissal is not merely a formal procedure, but an expression of an employee’s fundamental right to be heard before a step is taken that harms them. Accordingly, it has been determined that before a decision to dismiss an employee is made, the employer must allow the employee to present their arguments in a substantive manner and ensure that the decision is reached only after those arguments have been genuinely considered.
Attorney Anna Blau, who advises employers on termination procedures, notes that contrary to common perception, a pre-dismissal hearing is not the starting point but usually the final stage of the process. “The principal decision takes shape with the employer even before the hearing is scheduled, based on data, documentation and cumulative impressions, and the hearing is intended to examine whether the employee’s arguments justify a change,” she said.
“In practice, in most cases there are no surprises at the hearing and most hearings end in dismissal. At the same time, that does not mean the process is ‘rigged’ in advance by the employer, and employees themselves often arrive at the hearing focused on laying the groundwork for a future lawsuit rather than making a genuine attempt to change the decision and keep their job. That is why employers are required to be especially meticulous in keeping a full hearing protocol.”
Haim Molcho, CEO of Oketz Systems, said that while the survey findings could be interpreted as reinforcing the claim that some hearings are viewed in advance as a purely formal exercise, he urged caution. “In most cases, employers approach the dismissal process seriously and act fairly and in good faith,” he said. “Often, dismissals are not the result of desire or preference, but of constraints arising from the company’s economic situation, which force it to reduce its workforce even when the employees involved are high-quality, dedicated and capable.”