Labor Court Rules Optical Firm Illegally Hindered Unionization Efforts

The Regional Labor Court in Nazareth ruled last week that the Histadrut labor union is the representative workers' organization at Versano Optical Industries. The court determined that management personnel at the company improperly interfered with employees' unionization efforts, ordering Versano to recognize the Histadrut's representation, engage in collective bargaining with it, and pay 120,000 shekels in damages for hindering the unionization.

Workers at Versano, which manufactures lenses and optical products, began organizing with the Histadrut in January 2026. On January 18, the union informed the company of its representative status, submitting employee membership forms. Versano refused to recognize the union, claiming some members were not employees, others had withdrawn their membership, and some did not understand the implications of signing up.

Judge Miron Schwartz dismissed the company's claims, stating that as of the declaration date, Versano employed 64 workers, 37 of whom were Histadrut members, a number significantly exceeding the one-third threshold required for union representation. Even if the company's broader calculation of 75 employees with 41 members were used, the threshold would still be met. The court rejected the argument that the union lost its representation due to membership withdrawals, asserting that post-declaration withdrawals are presumed to result from employer pressure, placing the burden on the employer to prove good faith and non-interference.

The court found evidence of active management involvement in hindering the unionization. This included a technology manager restricting a committee member's movement and a maintenance manager questioning an employee's decision to join the union. The court noted the maintenance manager's testimony was not refuted by the company, nor was that of the factory manager, Alex Zeversky. Testimony from company witnesses actually supported the conclusion of management interference, with employees reporting being asked by managers about their union membership status and HR confirming she compiled lists of withdrawals, providing inconsistent accounts of how she received them.

In its ruling, the court concluded that company managers "actively worked to thwart the organization" through various means, including preventing employee discussions, holding individual meetings, issuing what the court deemed threatening messages, and monitoring membership withdrawals. The court emphasized that the company is responsible for its managers' actions, even if the owner claimed personal non-involvement. The ruling affirmed the Histadrut's representative status from January 18, 2026, mandating good-faith bargaining and prohibiting interference with union activities or retaliation against employees involved in organizing.

Histadrut regional chairman Leon Peretz stated, "I expect every employer to respect their employees' right to organize. Instead of hindering or creating difficulties, it is right to allow employees to organize freely and engage in constructive and respectful dialogue with them. Employee organization is a fundamental right and contributes to more stable, fair, and better labor relations for all parties."