Israeli Court Weighs Allowing Firing Reservists Retroactively

A crucial legal battle is underway at the National Labor Court, potentially reshaping employment laws for hundreds of thousands of Israeli reservists. The case centers on whether an employer can dismiss an employee during a protected period without prior approval and then seek retroactive permission from the Ministry of Defense's employment committee months later. The dispute arose from a case involving "Syncopa 2002," a sound and lighting company founded by residents of Kibbutz Kfar Aza, some of whose employees were killed or taken hostage on October 7th. The company is appealing a ruling concerning Idan Zohar, a former resident of Kfar Aza and one of its first employees, who returned to work as a ramp and logistics manager in July 2023. Zohar was called up for reserve duty on October 7th and served for nearly 500 days. His employment with Syncopa ended in late December 2025 under contentious circumstances.

Syncopa argues that barring retroactive permission requests leaves employers who discover reservist service after termination without a practical solution, making them "unintentionally wrongdoers." Conversely, Zohar's legal team warns that allowing retroactive approvals would enable employers to fire first and seek justification later, undermining the legal protections for reservists. The law prohibits employers from firing reservists during their service and for 30 days afterward (extended to 60 days for prolonged wartime service) without committee approval. This approval requires demonstrating that the dismissal is unrelated to reserve duty and that "special reasons" exist.

The company claims Zohar's termination was consensual, with him even rejecting an alternative role. Zohar, however, alleges he was promised a role only to be placated and was later informed of his dismissal. The legal conflict escalated in February 2026 when the National Insurance Institute revealed Zohar had served eight days of reserve duty in December. Syncopa then applied for retroactive permission, while Zohar filed a lawsuit for compensation. The employment committee in Be'er Sheva dismissed Syncopa's request, ruling it lacked jurisdiction and that the law's wording implies prospective action only. Syncopa's appeal to the Regional Labor Court was also rejected, with the court stating retroactive approval would "empty the legislator's protection of meaning."

Syncopa has now appealed to the National Labor Court, asserting the law does not explicitly forbid retroactive permits and that previous committee decisions have allowed them in cases of mutual agreement. The company points to three past instances where the committee approved retroactive permits when both employer and employee agreed to the separation. Zohar's attorneys counter that these cases, especially those predating the war's impact on reservist protections, should not set a precedent for unilateral dismissals. They emphasize a legislative trend towards strengthening reservist protections and warn that retroactive approvals would harm reservists' job security and potentially deter service.

Recently, the State Attorney's Office requested a 45-day extension to consider its position after Zohar's lawyers asked for the Attorney General to be summoned due to the case's broad implications. Syncopa opposed the delay, fearing it could postpone the upcoming hearing and force them into preliminary proceedings in Tel Aviv. The National Labor Court judge ordered Syncopa to justify its objection. Syncopa stated it "rejects the claim that Idan's termination was due to his service" and highlighted the difficulty employers face when reservist information surfaces only after employment ends, arguing the committee should have the authority to review such circumstances.