TEL AVIV — The Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court blocked Walla from proceeding with planned layoffs and organizational changes on July 8, 2026. The court ruled that the company had not fulfilled its obligation to conduct genuine consultations with the Union for Journalists in Israel.

Senior Judge Kamel Abou Kaoud issued the decision, which also rejected Walla's request to prevent the union from taking organizational action in response to the dispute. The court determined that in a unionized workplace, a company cannot implement layoffs and structural changes without providing workers' representatives with the necessary information to understand the plan, question it, and propose alternatives.

Walla informed the union in May 2026 of its intent to implement an efficiency plan involving organizational changes and workforce reductions. The union requested data to understand the plan's scope and justification, but negotiations did not result in an agreement. Walla asserted that it had supplied the required information and that other material was commercially sensitive. The union contended that essential information had been withheld and that Walla sought to present workers with pre-determined decisions.

The court stipulated that if Walla intends to pursue the plan, it must first complete the process outlined in its collective agreement with the union. This process requires providing relevant financial and organizational data, including the economic basis for any cuts, the savings sought, considered alternatives, and the criteria for selecting affected workers. "Consultation is not tested by the number of meetings held, nor by the amount of time devoted to negotiations," Abou Kaoud said. "The question is substantive: whether the workers' organization was given a real opportunity to understand the basis on which the efficiency plan rests, examine its necessity and propose alternatives."

Abou Kaoud stated that Walla failed to provide sufficient information regarding its economic condition, the financial cut it aimed to achieve, expected savings from layoffs, alternatives considered before staff reductions, or the criteria used to identify affected workers. "One cannot propose an alternative without knowing the economic target the company seeks to achieve," he said. He added, "One cannot propose another mechanism for reducing expenses without knowing the scope of the savings sought."

The court also rejected Walla's attempt to separate organizational restructuring from the layoffs, finding them to be intrinsically linked. Walla's reliance on the collective agreement's "industrial quiet" clause to block union action was also rejected. Abou Kaoud acknowledged that some requested information might be commercially sensitive but affirmed that this does not negate Walla's obligation to provide relevant information. The court suggested that confidentiality mechanisms, such as professional representatives, could be used to protect sensitive material. The idea that Walla could only show data to a financial expert acting on behalf of the union, who would then relay only general conclusions, was also rejected. "The right to consultation belongs to the workers' organization itself," Abou Kaoud said, "not to an accountant or outside expert acting in its place."

The court ordered Walla to refrain from making or implementing irreversible decisions regarding layoffs, organizational changes, or other parts of the efficiency plan until the consultation process concludes. The parties were ordered to continue talks in good faith. If an agreement is not reached within 30 days of the decision's service, either party may return to court. A hearing in the main proceeding is scheduled for August 25.