Labor Dispute (Nazareth) 27940-03-20 Dvir Cohen – Amud Farm Ltd.

Before:

The Honorable Judge Lubna Telhami Sweidan

Public Representative (Employees):  Ms.  Noga Botansky

Public Representative (Employers): Mr. Arie Tzilik

 The plaintiffs : – 1.  Dvir Cohen

2. Noam Azran

 By Attorney:  Adv. Tom Edri

–

 The defendants:  – 1.  Amud Farm Ltd., Company 513227355

2. Lior Haber

 By Attorney:  Adv. Yehoshua Rubin

Judgment

Introduction and sequence of proceedings in the case

1. We have before us the claims of Mr. Dvir Cohen (hereinafter – Dvir) and Mr. Noam Azran (hereinafter – Noam) against defendant 1 (hereinafter – the defendant or the farm) and against defendant 2 (hereinafter – the defendant), who is the owner and manager of the defendant, which concern rights in connection with the periods of the plaintiffs' work and their termination, including rights by virtue of the expansion orders in the agricultural sector.
2. On June 10, 2021, a preliminary hearing was held. After the parties' affidavits were submitted, on June 21, 2022, another preliminary hearing was held before the Honorable President Meron Schwartz (as he was then called), after which the parties embarked on a mediation proceeding on the recommendation of the Tribunal, which was unsuccessful.
3. In a decision dated 03/01/2023, the proceedings in the two claims were consolidated.

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916

4. 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, Isr. 51 (2)In a decision dated 04/05/2023, counsel for the previous defendants  was released from representing them, and as a result, the court granted the defendant's request to postpone the evidentiary hearing that was scheduled for 16/05/2023, while it was determined that instead of an evidentiary hearing, an additional preliminary hearing would be held, and it was also determined that an evidentiary hearing would be held on 06/07/2023.
5. However, the defendants did not appear for the hearing on May 16, 2023, but instead filed a request for postponement that morning, to which (the defendant's) sick certificate was attached. The defendants also filed a motion to postpone the evidentiary hearing scheduled for 06/07/2023, and in a decision dated 30/06/2023, the court granted the same request when it postponed the evidentiary hearing to 13/09/2023, while charging the defendants attorney's fees, in the sum of NIS 2,500.
6. On August 31, 2023, a power of attorney was submitted to the file on behalf of the defendants' current counsel. On September 12, 2023 - the day before the evidentiary hearing that was supposed to take place in the case, the defendants filed another motion to postpone the hearing, to which a sick certificate was attached by the defendants' attorney.  In the decision from that day, the evidentiary hearing was postponed to 15/11/2023, which was postponed to an agreed date, at the request of the defendants, and was set for 17/01/2024.
7. The defendants filed another motion to postpone the hearing a few days before the date of evidence set above, to which was again accompanied by a certificate of illness from the defendants' attorney. With no other choice, the evidentiary hearing scheduled for 17/01/2024 was canceled and the evidentiary hearing was scheduled for 09/07/2024.
8. On January 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to impose a temporary attachment on the defendants' assets and rights, which was rejected on the same day, as stated in the decision of the Honorable Nir Shalev Registrar (as described at the time).
9. On July 3, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to attach an "expert opinion on their behalf". After the plaintiffs' response to that request was received, in a decision dated 08/07/2024, the defendants' request was rejected, while they were charged attorney's fees, in the sum of NIS 1,000.
10. On 08/07/2024 - the day before the evidentiary hearing scheduled as detailed above, the defendants filed a motion to postpone another hearing, which was rejected in a decision from that day, while it was determined that on 09/07/2024, only the testimonies of the plaintiffs and their witnesses would be heard. It was further determined that if the defendant does not wish to appear for the hearing, he is exempt from appearing and that an additional evidentiary hearing will be scheduled to hear the testimonies on behalf of the defendants.
11. Copied from NevoOn 09/07/2024, the first evidentiary hearing was held, to which the plaintiffs, Mr. Yosef Friedlander, on whose behalf an affidavit of the main witness (hereinafter – Friedlander) and Mr. Emery Morgenstein (hereinafter – Mr. Emery) appeared. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs announced that the two witnesses on whose behalf affidavits were submitted, Mr. Nitai Goren and Mr. Omri Walzer, did not appear for the hearing, and therefore requested that their affidavits be removed from the file, and also asked that Mr. Emri testify, even though an affidavit had not been filed on his behalf.  After receiving the defendants' response, the court granted the plaintiffs' request to allow Mr. Emery's testimony, while allowing the defendants to file a request to file a supplementary affidavit.  The defendant did not appear for the first evidentiary hearing, at the end of which it was decided that the defendants' testimonies would be heard on September 19, 2024.
12. On September 19, 2024, the parties appeared for the hearing without the witness appearing on behalf of the defendants, Mr. Guy Shachar (hereinafter – Guy), on whose behalf an affidavit of the main witness was submitted. As part of this hearing, the defendant was questioned about his main testimony affidavit, and the case was set for a hearing of Mr. Guy's testimony to an agreed date on November 21, 2024.
13. The day before the aforementioned evidentiary hearing, the defendants filed a motion to postpone the hearing, to which they attached a sick certificate (of Mr. Guy) for November 20, 2024. After another sick certificate was submitted the next day, the hearing scheduled for 21/11/2024 was canceled and an additional and agreed hearing was scheduled for 05/12/2024.
14. On December 5, 2024, a third evidentiary hearing was held, in which Mr. Guy was questioned about his affidavit, and at the end a decision was made to submit the parties' summaries.
15. On December 19, 2024, the defendants filed a notice attached to the statement of claim they filed in the Magistrate's Court in Nazareth against the plaintiffs and against a limited company, as part of  civil case 45247-12-24.  This is a monetary claim in the amount of NIS 1,648,682 for various alleged damages, to which an expert opinion was attached, for which the decision was given on 08/07/2024 in the present proceeding, as detailed above.
16. Following the submission of the parties' summaries, on May 5, 2025, another hearing was held, in which the Tribunal informally raised a proposal to end the case by way of a settlement.  The parties requested a stay in order to announce their position, and on 08/05/2025 they announced their desire to issue a judgment.  Therefore, the case was transferred to a judgment that was prolonged, and for this the court's apology is attached.

The Mask of Evidence

17. Two affidavits were filed on behalf of each of the plaintiffs: one relating to his personal claim, and the other relating to the claim of the other plaintiff.  In addition, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits on behalf of Mr. Fredilander, who worked on the farm in the years 2016-2017, and two other affidavits whose givers did not appear for questioning, as detailed above.   The plaintiffs' affidavits were attached, inter alia, pay slips of the plaintiffs and other employees, calculations, WhatsApp correspondence, a transcript of a conversation between the defendant and Noam, photographs taken by the plaintiffs regarding their work on the farm, pension reports and bank transfers.  In addition, and as stated above, Mr. Emery testified on behalf of the parties.
18. The defendant submitted two affidavits – an affidavit regarding each of the plaintiffs, and an affidavit of Mr. Guy, a friend of the defendant who was alleged to have accompanied him in all matters related to the farm and its management.  The defendant's affidavit was attached, inter alia, a partnership agreement (unsigned) between the farm and Dvir, certificates regarding a herd tombstone, photos, WhatsApp  correspondence between the defendant and the plaintiffs, transcripts of conversations with parties who allegedly purchased a patchwork  exterminator, pension reports, a report of arrivals and exits from the country, and more.  As stated, the defendants' request to add new evidence "his expert opinion" was denied.

Factual Background and the Parties' Arguments in Summary

19. Dvir's claim - Dvir's claim is in the sum of NIS 985,739, for the period of employment from November 2011 to October 2019, by virtue of the Extension Order in the Agriculture Sector for Employees in Administrative Monthly Rank (hereinafter – the Administrative Extension Order), and the following are the remedies claimed in the following: compensation for failure to give notice of working conditions (NIS 5,000), severance pay (NIS 96,000), in lieu of deposits to a pension fund (NIS 59,109), restitution of an employee's pension (NIS 33,524.72), study fund (NIS 71,100), overtime pay (NIS 394,901.3), annual leave (NIS 53,200), convalescence (NIS 33,779), economy allowance (NIS 18,396), seniority supplement (NIS 39,685), family supplement (NIS 1,145.5), 13 salary (NIS 84,000).  In addition, Dvir petitioned for the return of the sum of NIS 96,000, which he claimed was transferred to the defendants in exchange for receiving profits from the farm, was not returned to him and for which he  did not receive compensation from the farm's profits.
20. The lion's share of Dvir's claim relates to the rights to which he claims he is entitled by virtue of the administrative extension order. In their statement of defense, the defendants denied the applicability of the expansion orders in the agriculture sector to the parties' employment  relations, but after the preliminary hearing on June 10, 2021, they announced their agreement that the expansion order in the agriculture sector applies to the parties' relationship, without explicit reference to the administrative extension order, which we will refer to below (see the defendants' notice of July 29, 2021).
21. As to Dvir's role: the parties do not disagree that Dvir and his family lived on the farm (paragraph 3 of Dvir's affidavit, paragraph 20 of the defendant's affidavit). The parties also do not dispute that Dvir served as the manager of the farm and was in charge of all the activity therein (paragraph 3 of Dvir's affidavit, paragraph 7 of the defendant's affidavit).  According to Dvir, during the day, he served as a sheep and cattle breeder and his role included, among other things, caring for sheep and cattle, feeding them, monitoring their medical condition and vaccinating them, giving births, releasing them and collecting them from around the farm.  Moreover, he took care of the ongoing maintenance of the farm, including the repair and cleaning of the pens.  According to Dvir, during the night hours he had to take care of the animals and the facilities (paragraphs 3 and 7 of his affidavit), and he claimed that he recorded all the data on the computer (paragraph 7 of his affidavit).  As stated, the defendants did not dispute Dvir's role as the manager of the farm; According to the defendants, Dvir served in a position of trust, a kind of CEO of the farm, and his areas of responsibility and role included management, handling and safeguarding the farm's assets, in addition to managing the farm's diaries and employees' diaries (paragraphs 7, 16-19 of the defendant's affidavit).
22. The parties disagree as to the provision of notice of working conditions, Dvir's salary, the format of his employment, the nature of his position and the applicability of the Hours of Work and Rest Law 5711-1951 (hereinafter – the Hours of Work and Rest Law) to his employment and as a result his entitlement to overtime pay.  The parties also disagreeas to Dvir's entitlement to rights by virtue of the expansion orders in the agricultural sector and to the return of the sum of NIS 96,000.
23. Noam's claim - Noam filed a claim for NIS 368,562 for the employment periodsfrom 12/2011 to 03/2014 and from 01/2016 to 10/2019, by virtue of the Expansion Order in the Agriculture Industry. The following are the remedies thatNoam claimed: compensation for failure to give notice of working conditions (NIS 5,000), severance pay (NIS 26,450), advance notice (NIS 6,900) in lieu of pension fund deposits (NIS 20,385), overtime pay (NIS 129,037.5), compensation for work on rest days (NIS 60,000), annual leave (NIS 13,769), convalescence (NIS 13,181), economic allowance (NIS 5,500), seniority supplement (NIS 1,890), annual grant (NIS 16,450).  In addition, Noam petitioned for the return  of the sum of NIS 70,000, which he claimed  he had transferred to the defendants in exchange for receiving profits from the farm, and for which he was not returned and did not receive compensation from the farm's profits.  As stated, the parties do not dispute the applicability of the extension order in the agriculture sector to the relationship between the parties (the defendants' notice of July 29, 2021).
24. As to Noam's role: the parties do not dispute that Noam and his family lived on the farm until the birth of his daughters in 2019 (paragraphs 4-5, 53-54 of Noam's affidavit, paragraph 22 of the defendant's affidavit).  There is no dispute that Noam was employed as a sheep and cattle breeder during the day and guarded the cattle at night.  His duties included, among other things, treatment, feeding and medical monitoring of the animals and their calving, their release to the farm and their collection.  In addition, Noam took care of the cleaning, repair and maintenance of the farm's facilities (paragraphs 3, 8-9 of Noam's affidavit, paragraphs 7, 19-21 of the defendant's affidavit).  The defendants denied that Noam guarded the farm and the animals at night, which they claimed were carried out  by the new guard voluntarily (paragraph 60 of the defendant's affidavit).   The defendants  further claimed that Noam, like Dvir, also served in a position of trust (paragraphs 20 and 54 of the defendant's affidavit).
25. The parties disagree as to the provision of notice of working conditions, the format of Noam's employment, the nature of his position and the applicability of the Hours of Work and Rest Law, and as a result, regarding his entitlement to overtime pay. The parties also disagree as to Noam's entitlement to rights by virtue of the Expansion Order in the Agriculture Sector and his entitlement to a refund of the sum of NIS 70,000.  It should be noted that the defendants' statement of defense does not contain any relief of offset or restitution, despite the fact that it is a material claim, an argument that was raised for the first time, only in the framework of the defendant's affidavit (section 87).
26. Bearing in mind that most of the issues and remedies claimed are joint, we will discuss the claims of the plaintiffs together below.

Notification of Employment Terms/Employment Agreement

27. Dvir claimed that he was not given notice of working conditions, as required by the Notice to Employee and Job Candidate Law (Conditions of Work and Selection and Admission Procedures) 5762-2002 (hereinafter – the Notice to Employee Law), and that no employment agreement was signed with him, and therefore he petitioned, as stated, to obligate the defendants to  pay compensation in the amount of NIS 5,000 (paragraphs 24-25 of his claim, paragraphs 16-17 of his affidavit, paragraphs 27-30 of his summaries).  On the other hand, the defendants claimed that Dvir was given the employment agreement, but the latter refused to sign it (paragraph 72 of the statement of defense, paragraphs 95-97 of their affidavit).
28. Noam claimed that he had not been given notice of working conditions as required by the Notice to Employee Law and that no employment agreement had been signed with him, and petitioned to oblige the defendants to pay compensation in the amount of NIS 5,000 (paragraphs 20-21 of his claim, paragraphs 20-21 of his affidavit, paragraphs 28-31 of his summaries).  On the other hand, the defendants claimed that an employment agreement was signed with Noam, a copy of which was taken by Noam when he left the farm with Dvir (paragraphs 26 and 72 of their statement of defense, paragraph 86 of their affidavit).
29. In their summaries, the defendants claimed that the two plaintiffs refused to sign the employment agreements, despite their agreement to the terms of their employment (paragraph 65 of the summaries).
30. The Legal Framework – The Notice to the Employee Law imposes an obligation on the employer to provide the employee with a notice detailing his working conditions, within 30 days of the beginning of employment (section 1).  Violation of the Notice to Employee Law entails criminal liability, and grants the court the authority to award compensation and reverse the burden of proof.  Section 2 of the law stipulates that the notice to the employee shall specify, among other things, the date of commencement of employment, the description of the employee's position, the salary, and more.
31. Section 5A of the Notice to Employee Law states : "In an action by an employee against his employer in which a matter is in dispute under section 2, and the employer did not give the employee notice that he is obligated to provide as stated in sections 1 or 3, in general or in respect of that matter, the employer will have the burden of proof regarding the disputed matter, provided that the employee testified about his claim in that matter, including in an affidavit under the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971"
32. In the comprehensive judgment of the National Court in the case of Kaplan & Levy [Labor Appeal (National) 20880-07-20 Tesfaselase Desale Zerezgi - Kaplan & Levy Ltd., dated 20/06/2022, hereinafter – the Kaplan & Levy case] it was held that "the starting point is that as a rule (subject to concrete provisions regarding the reversal of the burden of persuasion as detailed in detail above) an employee has the burden of persuading of a violation of a right to which he is entitled, including the right to receive notice to the employee by virtue of the Notice to Employee Law. However, as a practical matter, an employer's failure to provide notice is difficult to prove with objective external evidence, since it is a negative component (failure to provide the form) and not a positive component (the submission of the form).  Therefore, the employee's testimony regarding the failure to give notice is sufficient at the initial stage to shift the burden of proof to the employer, i.e., to present a copy of the notice form to the employee or to give a reasonable explanation as to why he is unable to present this form.  We will precede the latter and note that the decision will ultimately be made on the basis of the evidentiary fabric, the reasons for its deficiency if there is a deficiency, and the reliability of the parties' testimonies" (see also Labor Appeal (National) 51770-06-23 - MAJOR GEBRIMARYA, R.  A.  Services and Cleaning (Israel) 1987 Ltd., dated 05/08/2025).

In the Kaplan and Levy case, it was also ruled that the main way to meet the burden of proving that notice was given to the employee "is to present the notice form that the employer claims was given to the employee, as it constitutes the best evidence.  To be precise, sometimes there may be a reasonable explanation for refraining from submitting the form (such as a proven fire as a result of which this evidence was lost).  In such a case, the court will decide the issue according to the relative reliability of the witnesses and additional evidence to the extent that it is brought before it," and that "the Notice to the Employee Law does not stipulate that the employee is required to confirm with his signature the receipt of the notice form to the employee, and therefore the employee's signature is not an essential condition for the validity of the notice.  The absence of an employee's signature on the notice form to the employee is not a circumstance that justifies, in itself, a determination that the employee was not given notice."

33. From the general to the individual – after considering the arguments of the parties, the testimonies, reviewing all the material in the case, and in view of the case law, we reached the conclusion that the defendants did not meet the burden and did not prove that any of the plaintiffs were given notice in accordance with the Notice to the Employee Law, and did not prove that the employment agreements were signed with the plaintiffs in order to  make such notice redundant.  Let us explain.
34. In his testimony before us, the defendant admitted that he was aware of the obligation to give notice of the terms of the transaction to the plaintiffs (s. 19, p. 5 of the protégé).  His explanations that he gave notice of the terms of employment, and that the plaintiffs refused to sign the employment agreement or took their employment agreements when they left the job, did not satisfy us.  We prefer the plaintiffs' version that they were not given notice of the terms of the transaction or that employment agreements were signed with them.  The defendant's testimony on this matter did not leave a credible impression on us, and we were under the impression that his testimony was innocent and evasive in contrast to the plaintiffs' consistent and coherent version that was not undermined, as we will detail below.
35. Dvir's claim: In his testimony before us, Dvir reiterated his version that he was not given notice of the terms of the employment or the employment agreement, and added that at his request , the defendant presented him with the employment agreement, but Dvir refused to sign it since the agreement was not signable, since he claimed that all the obligations that Dvir would not be able to fulfill, including a commitment to work 24 hours (Dvir's testimony, paras.  28-39 at p. 18,  19, paras. 9-22, at p. 20 of the protégé).  Moreover, in his testimony before us, Dvir denied any connection between the partnership agreement that was attached as Appendix A to the defendant's affidavit, and the employment agreement that was presented to him and referred only to the terms of the salary (S. 37,  p. 19, and later on at p. 20 of the protégé).  Dvir testified that he continued to work on the farm despite the lack of an employment agreement, since there was an honorary agreement between the parties regarding the terms of the wages he received according to the slip, in addition to the seriousness fee of NIS 96,000 (Q. 24-31, p. 19 of the note).
36. On the other hand, and as stated, the defendant admitted before us that he was aware of the obligation to give the plaintiffs notice of the terms of employment, and when he was asked in his interrogation whether he had given written notice of the working conditions to Dvir, he replied "clearly" (the defendant's testimony, s. 38, p. 23, 25, 39, p. 5 of the proclamation).  The defendant claimed that there was "  Yes.  the transaction document" (paras. 24 and para. 26, p. 6 of the protégé), but when the defendant was asked to refer to the document that was given to Dvir, he replied, "I don't know if it is, I have to check if I gave it and if not, listen, it was before, in 2013, I don't, I don't, I estimate that he attached it, but there was an orderly employment agreement" (paras. 28-30, p. 5 of the protégé).
37. In their summaries, the defendants claimed that a copy of the employment agreement was attached as an appendix to the defendants' pleadings (paragraph 21 of their summaries), while a review of the appendix attached to the statement of defense (Appendix A) and the defendant's affidavit shows that this is a document that does not relate at all to the terms of Dvir's employment. More than necessary, we will add that the defendants' argument that repeated requests to Dvir in order to sign an agreement, the transaction that first arose in the defendants' summaries (section 21), although it constitutes an extension of a prohibited front, is considered a rejection on its merits, since it was argued after hand and was not backed up by the defendant's document or testimony.
38. We are aware that Dvir's admission before us that he refused to sign the employment agreement (paras. 4-6, p. 19, paras. 16-17, p. 20 of the prot.), ostensibly strengthens the defendants' argument, but we are of the opinion that Dvir's refusal to sign the employment agreement does not exempt the defendant from its legal responsibility to give the employee notice of the terms of the employment and to present it in the framework of this proceeding.  On the contrary, Dvir's refusal to sign, as alleged, obligates the defendant to give him notice of working conditions, in order to make redundant disputes that may arise in the future, as indeed happened.
39. As for our decision – as stated, in view of the case law and the burden of proof that the defendant did not meet, we accept Dvir's claim for compensation for failure to provide notice of working conditions, in the sum of NIS 5,000.
40. Noam's claim: Noam's version that he was not given notice of the terms of employment or the employment agreement was not challenged throughout the proceeding; in his testimony before us, too, Noam reiterated his version and added that despite his appeals to the defendant in order to sign the employment agreement over the years, no employment agreement was presented to him or signed (Noam's testimony, paras. 30 ff., p. 43 of the proclamation). As stated, the defendants claimed that Noam signed the employment agreement, but they do not have a copy of it, since it was taken by Noam when he left his job (paragraph 86 of the defendant's affidavit), whereas in his cross-examination before us, the defendant testified that Noam's employment agreement is actually in the possession of the defendants, "I have, I have a signed document of Noam" (the defendant's testimony, s. 28, p. 7 of the prot.); a version that was not proven at all because the document was not presented,  In their summaries, the defendants referred to the partnership agreement that was attached to the statement of defense and the defendant's affidavit, which dealt with the money that Noam transferred to the farm and had nothing to do with the terms of his employment.
41. As for our decision – as stated, in view of the case law and the burden of proof that the defendant did not meet, we accept Noam's claim for compensation for failure to provide notice of working conditions, in the sum of NIS 5,000.
42. With regard to the consequences of not giving notice of working conditions, in the case of Kapelo and Levy, it was held that "in a situation in which the employee was not given notice of the working conditions, and the employee gave a version of his agreed working conditions, the burden of proof regarding the agreed working conditions is on the employer, in accordance with section 5A of the Notice to the Employee Law. To the extent that at the end of the evaluation of all the evidence, including the pay slips, it is found that the scales are biased, the supplier will act in accordance with the employer's obligation.  (See: The Ukrainsky Case)." 
43. Since we are guided by the case law, we will turn to examine the implications of not providing notice of working conditions to the plaintiffs in terms of the burden of proof and persuasion in relation to the disputed issues, in particular with respect to the terms of employment of the plaintiffs, which were supposed to be expressed in the notice of working conditions or the employment agreement in accordance with the Notice to Employee Law.

Employment Periods

44. We will preface and clarify that prior to the enactment of the Notice to Employee Law, the burden of proving the period of employment was imposed on the employee, but with the enactment of the Notice to Employee Law, the burden of proving the period of employment, in the absence of notice of working conditions, was imposed on the employer. As stated, Section 2(2) of the Notice to Employee Law requires the employer to provide "the date of commencement of employment and if the employment contract is for a fixed period – the period of employment; If the employment contract is not for a fixed period, the employer will state this." 
45. As for Dvir: The parties disagree regarding the date of the start of Dvir's employment and the termination of Dvir's employment. Dvir claimed that he was employed at the farm from November 2011 to October 2019 (paragraphs 4-5 of his claim, paragraph 3 of his affidavit), while the defendants claimed that Dvir was employed on the farm from December 2011 (paragraph 51(b) of their statement of defense, paragraph 7 of the defendant's affidavit), and did not explicitly refer  to the date of termination of Dvir's employment.
46. Discussion and Decision - After examining the arguments of the parties and all the material in the file, we reached the conclusion that Dvir worked on the farm from December 2011 until October 2019 (antitrust 95 months).  Let us elaborate.
47. As to the date of the commencement of Dvir's employment, we are aware that in the absence of a notice of working conditions, the burden of proving the date of the employment period is on the defendants.  However, in our opinion, the defendants met the burden and proved the date of the beginning of Dvir's employment, as of December 2011, as it appears in the pay slips.  First of all, there is no dispute that Dvir received the pay slips "sometimes" (his testimony, s. 8, p. 22 of Prut) and that the sum paid to him in the pay slip, apart from the sum of NIS 2,500 that he claimed he received in cash and which was not documented in the pay slip at the defendant's request, checked the parties' agreements (Dvir's testimony, pp. 21-25, pp.  19 of Prut).  Dvir did not raise, even implicitly, an  argument for the fictitious nature of the pay slips in relation to the start of employment figure reported in them, and therefore we determine that what is reported in the pay slips in relation to the date of the commencement of his employment reflects the date of the commencement of Dvir's employment.
48. As for the date of termination of Dvir's employment, as stated, Dvir claimed that he worked on the farm until October 2019, while the defendants did not explicitly refer to the date of termination of his employment. Apart from the claim that on September 23, 2019, a meeting was held in which the plaintiffs announced their resignation and that the plaintiffs abandoned the farm immediately (paragraphs 41-44 of the defendant's affidavit in Dvir's claim), there is no positive reference to the date of termination of the plaintiffs' employment.
49. As for our decision, in this dispute we prefer Dvir's version to the defendant's version, and we will reason. First of all, Dvir's version that he worked on the farm until and including October 2019, and that he warned the defendant a month and a half before he resigned, and even asked to overlap with a substitute worker, while the defendant tried to create a dispute between Dvir and Noam when he suggested that each of them separately stay on the farm and "kick" the other, is supported by Noam's testimony (paragraph 15 of Dvir's affidavit, paragraph 19 of Noam's affidavit,   09/07/2024: Testimony of Dvir in S. 1-14, 7 B, p. 25, testimony of Noam in S. 2, 4-28,  p. 43).
50. Second, in a correspondence between Noam and the defendant dated 01/10/2019 (Appendix 14 to the defendants' affidavit), Noam wrote the following to the defendant:

"Lior, peace and happy holidays.  Following our conversation in which we say that we are finishing our work on the farm, we want to sit down and close the matter in the best way possible for all of us.  We arranged to meet today, in order to coordinate the schedule and conditions of departure.  We would appreciate it if you would come to the meeting today as we agreed.  Thank you in advance."

51. The aforementioned correspondence undermines the defendant's version that after the meeting on September 23, 2019, the plaintiffs left the farm immediately, since we learn that on October 1, 2019, Noam asked to coordinate a date and demanded the termination of the transaction, in his words, "the schedule and conditions of departure".
52. Third, the defendant produced pay slips for the month of October 2019 - an examination of Dvir's pay slip for the month of October 2019 shows that this is a salary component of NIS 1,101 gross, NIS 654 net.  In other words, the defendants admit that Dvir worked in the month of October 2019 and was paid wages for work.  In addition, the defendant produced a slip for Dvir 11/2019 in the framework of which she supposedly prepared a final account.
53. As to Noam: the parties do not dispute that Noam was employed at the farm during two periods, the first: from 12/2011 to 03/2014 (hereinafter – the first employment period), and that the beginning of his second employment date is from 01/2016 (paragraph 3 of Noam's affidavit, paragraphs  7-8 of the defendant's affidavit in Noam's claim).  The parties disagree with respect to the date of termination of Noam's employment during  the period of employment as of 01/2016 (hereinafter – the second employment period), as well as on the question of whether Noam was absent from work for 5 months during 2019.
54. In their statement of defense, the defendants claimed that Noam was absent from work for 5 months, between  the months of December 2018 and May 2019, without their knowledge or approval, and that Noam received a sum of NIS 32,000 fraudulently for these months even though he did not work (paragraphs 10 and 55).  In the defendant's affidavit, he  claimed, for the first time, that on May 8, 2019, when the defendant visited the farm, he discovered, randomly, that Noam had been absent from work for 5 months, and that Dvir had confirmed to him that since Noam left the farm, he had not returned to work.  The defendant further claimed that despite Dvir's promise that Noam would return the funds he had received illegally, they were not returned (paragraphs 35-38 of his affidavit).  In support of the aforesaid, the defendant referred to the correspondence on WhatsApp with Dvir (Appendix 4 to his affidavit); in addition to the location of Noam's cell phone (CD, Appendix 17 to his affidavit).
55. In his affidavit, Noam denied the defendants' claims that he was absent from work for 5 months for which he had received full wages illegally, and claimed that after the birth of his matching daughters in March 2019, he informed the defendant that he would be absent from work for a month and a half, and in response, the defendant replied that his absence was completely understandable and that he would be paid wages during this period, as was done in practice (paragraphs 70-72 of Noam's affidavit).  Noam further claimed that in the months of 1, 2, 4, and 5/2019, he  worked full time and still worked at night, although he worked "less" overtime hours (paragraphs  73-74 of his affidavit), and that in light of the decrease in the scope of his work, Dvir presented the matter to the defendant and demanded assistance (paragraph 74 of Noam's affidavit).  In support of his claims that he worked during these months, Noam attached photos that he claimed were taken on the farm by him and Dvir in April 2019 (paragraph 75 of his affidavit, Appendix 14).
56. As for our decision, after examining the arguments of the parties, examining the testimonies and reviewing all the evidence, we reached the conclusion that the defendants did not meet the burden and did not prove that Noam was absent during the second period of employment during the 5 months in 2019 as alleged, without the knowledge and approval of the defendant.  Let us elaborate.
57. First of all, we were persuaded that the defendant who was involved in everything (testimony6, paras. 24-26, p. 49 of the prot., testimony of Dvir, para. 17, p. 34 of the protégé) knew of Noam's absence in real time, since this absence was coordinated with him and with the consent and in the words of Noam, "I would also like to say that I coordinated it directly with Lior, that is, not second-hand, Lior heard it from me" (testimony of Noam, 34-35, p. 46 of the protégé).  Noam's version was not contradicted and was even strengthened by Dvir's testimony (paras. 23-28, p. 34 of Prut).
58. On the other hand, an orderly and detailed version as to the period of Noan's absence  was not presented by the defendants.  In their statement of defense, the defendants claimed "...Between the months of mid-December 2018 and mid-May 2019, the plaintiff did not report to work without the knowledge of the company or Lior and received full wages fraudulently for those months" (paragraph 55 of the statement of defense), while in the defendant's affidavit it was claimed that "... On May 8, 2019, during a visit to the farm, I accidentally discovered that Noam had been absent from the farm and had not actually worked on the farm for about 5 months.  In light of the discovery that the plaintiff (together with Dvir) had been hiding from me and the company for many months, I was left stunned.  I will note that during this period the plaintiff did not live on the farm, after he left it at his request before the birth of his twin children (born in March 2020), at the end of 2018" (paragraphs 35-36 of the defendant's affidavit, the mistake in the dates in the original – L.T.S.).
59. The discovery of Noam's absence and the detail in the defendant's  developing version as it emerges from his affidavit constitutes,  in our opinion, an expansion of a prohibited front and impairs the credibility and authenticity of the defendant's version,  taking into account that these material claims were not raised in the statement of defense, despite the fact that they were  before the defendants at the time of filing the statement of defense, including the evidence, the WhatsApp correspondence dated 08/05/2019 between Dvir and the defendant, to which the defendants referred.
60. We have not been persuaded that Noam was absent from work in the months of 12/2018-02/2019, and his testimony before us according to which he worked as usual until March 2019, including during the period when his wife was hospitalized for the purpose of maintaining a pregnancy, was not contradicted and supported by Dvir's testimony (testimony of Dvir, paras. 17 onwards, pp. 24-4 at p. 25, testimony of Noam, at pp. 37-39 of the protégé), so we determine that Noam worked from the months of 12/2018 to 02/2019.
61. This is not the case with respect to the months of 03-05/2019. Noam did not present us with an orderly version regarding his absence during these months, and  contradictions even arose in his version regarding this period.  Dvir's testimony in this dispute did not satisfy us either; And it is not for nothing that Dvir did not know how to point out the extent of Noam's absence from work (S. 5-8, p. 36 of the protégé).
62. Noam's statement of claim makes no reference to partial or complete absences during the months in question, whereas in his affidavit, and in light of the defendants' claims, Noam stated that in the months 1, 2, 4, and 5/2019  he worked at the farm fully "and no other claim should be accepted in this regard" (paragraph 73 of his affidavit).
63. In the preliminary hearing on June 10, 2021, Noam stated that he was  absent  from work for only two weeks, with the defendant's consent, as follows: "There is a period of two weeks that I did not work, and I announced that I did not work, it was after my wife gave birth to twins and I was at home with her during this period.  The rest of the period, which is not 5 months, but less I went from working 15-18 hours a day to working 8 hours a day.  That's why I was told that I don't work... When my wife was on maternity leave at the hospital, Lior said it wasn't happening, and then I had to rent a house in Hukuk, renovate and paint it, all while I was still working 8 hours on the farm.  During the period in question, there were two weeks when I was at home and did not come to work with Lior's consent, when my wife returned from the hospital, beyond that it was during these months that I worked less than before, due to the situation, and went down to work 8 hours a day" (S. 16-27, p. 7 of the protégé).
64. In his testimony before us, Noam stated that after the birth of his daughters, after 01/03/2019, he was absent from work for a full 6 weeks, and that the defendant informed him that he would continue to pay him wages during this period (pp. 37-38 of Prut), andadded that during this period as well he helped Dvir here and there (S 20-21, pp. 38 of Prut). According to Noam's version, at the end of 6 weeks of full absence, i.e., in the middle of April 2019, he returned to work but not in the same employment format, but full-time - only  8 hours of work and night shifts (S. 16 ff. at p. 38 of the protégé, and also Appendix 14 to Tahir Noam - photos taken by him on the farm in April 2019).  Noam testified that there were additional absences on other days when he was in the hospital with his daughters or was in Tel Aviv (S. 8-9, p. 39 of the affidavit), a testimony that is consistent with what is stated in paragraph 72 of his affidavit: "In March, my twin daughters were born and I informed Lior that during the month and a half I would have to be absent from work and help my wife during this period.  Lior stated to me that this is absolutely understandable and that I am entitled to a salary during this period and indeed the salary was paid to me – the matter was in full coordination with the defendant", and therefore we chose to trust her.
65. Moreover, an examination of the transcript of the conversation between Noam and the defendant (Appendix 13 to Noam's affidavit) shows that the issue of Noam's alleged absence was part of the conversation, when Noam denied the defendant's claims and remained in his position that his absence was expressed in work within the framework of only 8 hours, instead of in the format of 18 hours a day.  Even when Noam was  confronted with the correspondence between Dvir and the defendant, he testified that he returned to work "only" 8 hours a day (Appendix 4 to the defendant's affidavit, Noam's testimony at p. 12 ff. at p. 38, p. 39 of Prot., Appendix 13 to Noam's affidavit – transcript of a conversation between the defendant and Noam).
66. The transcript of the conversation between Noam and the defendant also indicates that the defendant stated that there was a recording in which Dvir admits that Noam had been absent from work for five months (paras. 16-23 at p. 6 of the transcript).  But that  alleged recording was not submitted.  Hence, we did not accept the defendant's version that Dvir admitted to him that Noam was missing, without the defendant's knowledge or consent.
67. In addition, we also considered attributing weight to the issue of the defendants' failure to take any steps, following the alleged disclosure dated 08/05/2019 regarding Noam's  prolonged absence  from work.  The defendants, despite weighty  allegations regarding the receipt of "fraudulent" wages in the sum of NIS 32,000, sat idly by and did not contact Noam on the matter immediately, whether in writing or orally.  Moreover, the defendant paid Noam a salary as of 06/2019, and did not act to offset the alleged amounts, and even produced a pay slip 11/2019 in the framework of which she finalized an account from which no amounts were deducted.  This conduct is inconsistent with logic and common sense when the defendants, according to them, were already aware that Noam had received a 5-month salary to which he was not entitled.
68. We have not lost sight of the correspondence between Dvir and the defendant (Appendix 4 to the defendant's affidavit, pp. 51-54 ibid.), in which Dvir wrote to the defendant the following:

"Dear and important Lior, he understands you completely, we will talk to him, we will settle matters if necessary, as I know Noam, he is not a thief, on the contrary, what needs to be returned to the farm, he will not do things.  I do and will do the maximum for the success of the farm! Every day I learn something new, there are advantages for Golenchik like me.  Thank you for everything in general and in particular...", and later the defendant wrote, "Obviously, I'm with you because you're so illogical, it doesn't make sense to have people in the system who don't feel or behave 100% of what they can give, and Noam has abilities!" He's very talented" It's animals!! It can be posed  , we can prepare for it to disappear!! Really but really inappropriate" (spelling mistakes in the original - L.T.S.).

69. In our opinion, it is not possible to draw a conclusion  from the aforementioned correspondence that Noam disappeared from his job for 5 months, as the defendants claim.   We accept  Noam's version when confronted with the content of this correspondence, and stated thatDvir apparently meant his 6-week absence, which was coordinated in advance with the defendant, or his work within the framework of only 8 hours, and not in the same fixed format and availability as before, when Dvir was dealing alone with  a workload and needed help (p. 48 of the protégé).
70. We are aware that Dvir's answers when asked about this correspondence were evasive  and did not satisfy us.  At the beginning  of his interrogation,  Dvir confirmed that he had told the defendant that as soon as it became clear that Noam owed money, he would return it, and later denied that he had said so, and finally said, "I said that if there is any...  If there is some misunderstanding and if Noam is an honest man who will have to return his time, then he will return, that is what I said" (Q. 30-331, p. 14 of Prot.), but we were not persuaded that it is possible to prove by means of these statements and Dvir's testimony that Noam was absent for 5 months, without the knowledge or approval of the defendant.
71. The defendants base their claims on the location report of Noam's cell phone, which was attached as Appendix 17 to the defendant's affidavit.  The rule is that "the issuance of a location order is not the end of the story, and it does not constitute a rivet as to the weight that will be given to the information obtained by means of that order.  Thus, and for example, it is prima facie expected that an employer who presents a location report and wishes to draw conclusions from it regarding the employee's whereabouts – will submit a professional opinion detailing what can be learned from the location report and what its limitations are" [Request for Leave to Appeal (National) 46660-01-22 Tal Gorsky - Tony Vespa Pizza Ltd., dated 03/04/2022].  Therefore, in the absence of a professional opinion, we did not see fit to attribute weight to the defendants' claim that their version that Noam  was absent from work during the months of 01-05/2019 was proven by means  of the aforementioned Appendix 17.
72. More than necessary, we will add that a review of the location order, which is more than 500 pages, does not indicate such absence. According to those documents,  Noam was present at Kibbutz Hakuk where the farm is located, and in the absence of proof or professional opinion, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that he was somewhere else on the kibbutz and not on the farm.  Moreover, a review of the location order found support that in the months of February 1, 2019, during the period when his wife was hospitalized for the purpose of pregnancy care, Noam visited his wife, mainly, in the evening and at  night [for example, on January 15, 2019 (20:57), January 22, 2019 (20:13-22:00), January 24, 2019 (21:10), January 25, 2019 (20:11), January 27, 2019 (18:18), January 28, 2019 (18:50), 02/02/2019 (20:59), 05/02/2019 (18:37), 06/02/2019 (22:04)].
73. As to the date of termination of Noam's employment – as stated in our decision in Dvir's case, we were persuaded that the plaintiffs were employed at the farm until and including for the month of October 2019, and the reasons detailed above in Dvir's case are also applicable to Noam's case.
74. In summary: Noam was employed on the farm from 12/2011 to 03/2014, the first period that is not in dispute. As for the second period, we determine that Noam was employed from 01/2016 to 10/2019 (hereinafter – the second employment period), during which he was absent from work from 01/03/2019 to 15/04/2019 (6 weeks) with the knowledge and approval of the defendant (business restrictions, 46 months of employment, 45 months in practice). 
75. For the avoidance of doubt, we would like to clarify that the defendants' claim for deduction and restitution, which arose for the first time in the defendant's affidavit with respect to wages for those 5 months in respect of which it was claimed that Noam was absent from work, is deferred. The claim was not raised in the statement of defense and constitutes an expansion of a prohibited front.  However, the argument is also rejected on its merits in light of our determination that the defendants did not prove that Noam was absent from work in the months of 01-05/2019, and in light of our determination that he was absent from work during the period 01/03/2019-15/04/2019, when the absence was with the knowledge and approval of the defendant.

Salary

76. Similar to the reversal of the burden regarding the period of employment, following the enactment of the Notice to the Employee Law, the  burden of proving the amount of the employee's salary  also shifted to the employer, as long as no employment agreement or notice of working conditions was presented.  In accordance with Section 2(5) of the Notice to Employee Law, an employer is obligated to provide in writing "the total payments paid to the employee as wages and the dates of payment of wages, but if his wages are determined according to a rating, by virtue of a collective agreement or according to it, the employee's rank and rank." 
77. Before examining the plaintiffs' fixed wages, we should mention that "the standard way to determine the amounts of wages and severance pay is to determine them in the 'gross' amount... The parties are entitled to stipulate and determine that the employee will receive a "net" payment" [Discussion (National Labor) 3-162/" Dan" Cooperative Society for Public Transportation in a Tax Appeal - Amnon Malmela et al. 20(1) 460 (1989)].
78. From here we turn to examine whether the defendants stood up and proved what the plaintiffs' determining wages were, taking into account that the plaintiffs provided a detailed version of the wages paid to them, as will be detailed below.
79. Dvir's salary: In his statement of claim, Dvir claimed that at the beginning of his employment period, he was paid a sum of NIS 10,000 net, of which NIS 2,500 was paid in cash at the defendant's request.  As of 2014, he was paid a  total of NIS 9,500 net after deducting a total of NIS 500 net for a pension (paragraphs 7 and 8 of the statement of claim).  In his affidavit, Dvir put his fixed salary at NIS 9,500 net – NIS 11,500 gross, and added that as of 2016 his salary was split, so that he was paid a total of NIS 7,000 net, as appears on the pay slips, andin addition, he was paid NIS 2,500 in cash (paragraph 6 of his affidavit).  For the avoidance of doubt, we would like to clarify that Dvir did not refer in his statement of claim or affidavit to the method of payment of salary, except for the payment of NIS 2,500 in cash, which was not reported in the slip as alleged.  In his summaries, Dvir reiterated his arguments and claimed that it had been proven that the sum of NIS 2,500, which the defendants admitted to having paid him in cash, was part of his determining salary (paragraphs 31-41 of the summaries).
80. In their statement of defense, the defendants referred to the salary reported in the pay slips, and claimed that it was agreed that Dvir's salary would be NIS 7,000-7,500 net (section 68).  The defendants added that the living expenses incurred by the farm were part of Dvir's terms of salary (section 65), without quantifying or determining the amount claimed.  Moreover, the defendants claimed that Dvir was  paid a month of NIS 2,500 in cash, but they claimed that this was a loan provided by the farm to Dvir, out of the investment money that Dvir provided to the farm (paragraphs 37-40 of the statement of defense).  In his affidavit,  the defendant reiterated the arguments in the statement of defense.  According to the defendants, Dvir's fixed salary of NIS 7,600 – NIS 8,950 gross should be set at (paragraph 87 of the defendant's affidavit), when according to them, Dvir asked the farm to provide him with a monthly loan of NIS 2,500 from the investment money he provided to the farm,  after his request for a raise was refused.  The farm granted the request and began to pay him the sum of NIS 2,500, starting at  the end of 2016 (paragraphs 37-40 of the statement of defense, paragraph 13 of  the defendants' summaries).
81. As for our decision – the question before us and which we must decide is whether the pay slips reflect Dvir's salary? And yes, we are required to decide whether the sum of NIS 2,500, which is indisputably paid to Dvir, is wages as he claims, or whether it is a loan as claimed by the defendants.
82. With regard to the receipt of the pay slips during the period of Dvir's employment, it was proven before us that the plaintiffs received a copy of the pay slips during the period of their employment, when their claim that the pay slips were not made available to them during the period of their employment and that they received a copy of them only in 2019, after a demand (paragraphs 11 of Dvir's statement of claim, paragraph 7 of Noam's statement of claim) was contradicted in their testimonies. Let us elaborate.  As noted, in his testimony, Dvir confirmed that he received a copy of the pay slips "sometimes" (paras. 7-8, p. 22, para. 16, p. 32 of the protégé).  Noam also confirmed in his testimony before us that he received the pay slips: "No, I did not look at the pay slips, in the end I did ask for them, I received them in pieces and in parts, but a different story" ( 35-37, p. 41 of the particular).
83. Fredilander also stated in his testimony that the pay slips were sent to him by Dvir from the farm's email (S. 29, p. 4 of the protégé).  The plaintiffs also attached to their evidence pay slips of other employees (Appendix F to Dvir's affidavit), so it is inconceivable that Dvir's pay slips  were in Dvir's possession, and he was the one who transferred them to the employees, when his pay slips were not received by him.  It has not escaped our notice that the plaintiffs' pay slips, which were attached to the statement of claim and their affidavits, were produced on 02/02/2020.  However, we accept the  defendants' argument that these were reproduced at the request of the plaintiffs, who requested to receive a copy after the pay slips were lost to them (paragraphs 61 of the statements of defense).
84. As for the authenticity of Dvir's pay slips, it was proven that until 2016, the pay slips reflected the actual salary paid to Dvir.  Dvir confirmed in his testimony before us that he was paid a net salary in accordance with pay slips, and even when a sum of NIS 500 was deducted for his share of the pension, it was with his consent (p. 18 of the prot).  Therefore, we have decided to adopt the salary reported in the pay  slips up to and including the month of December 2015.  Let us clarify.
85. First of all, we were persuaded that the salary component reported for travel is a fictitious component, since there is no dispute that Dvir and his family lived on the farm and he did not need travel.  Moreover, and as will be detailed below, we have not been persuaded that this is a convalescence component that  was inadvertently  registered as travel as claimed by the defendants, and therefore this component is an integral part of Dvir's salary.
86. Second, we reject Dvir's argument that his salary should be set at NIS 11,500 gross for the period prior to 2016 as well.  The claim that he was paid a sum of NIS 10,000 net at the beginning of his employment period, and in 2014 until the end of his employment in the sum of NIS 9,500 net (paragraphs 7-8 of the claim, paragraph 6 of the affidavit), contradicts his testimony that "the agreement is the salary I receive, the salary I receive... that is in the coupons" (Q. 21-24, p. 19 of the note), and to his admission that he received his net salary in accordance with the slip, "the net in the slips was sometimes paid and sometimes the withholding of salary was for 3 months afterwards, two months later... At the end of the day, the salary was paid yes, but part of it was deducted for me in favor of social benefits that were not paid to me" (Q. 15-20, p. 18 of the protégé).  Moreover, Dvir testified that the sum of NIS 2,500 that he received in cash constitutes a salary increase "he was explicitly paid me a salary increase of NIS 2,500" (s. 5 ff. at p. 18 of the prot.  In other words, Dvir's salary prior to that raise was NIS 7,000 net, as stated in the pay slips.
87. It should be noted that in the framework of the calculations that Dvir made for some of the components of the claim, including for the study fund, pension deposits and seniority supplement, Dvir adopted the salary that appears on the pay slip up to and including the month of December 2015.  These calculations are inconsistent with hisanswer that until December 2015 his salary was NIS 9,500 net, an amount that exceeds the gross amounts in the pay slips issued until December 2015.  All the more so, when he did not make a claim about the fictitious nature of the pay slips or payments that were not reported in the framework of the pay slips up to and including the month of December 2015.
88. With regard to the sum of NIS 2,500 that Dvir received in cash as of 2016 – after carefully examining the arguments and testimonies of the parties and examining all the evidence in the file, we are convinced that Dvir met the burden and proved that the sum was part of his salary. Let us explain.
89. First, they gave training to D. Bir's consistent and coherent version, according to which  at the beginning of 2016 it was agreed between the parties that he would receive an increase of NIS 2,500 in cash and "in black", at the defendant's request (paragraph 69 of his affidavit), and that this was not a loan provided to him by the farm from the investment funds he transferred in the amount of NIS 96,000 (paragraphs 73 and 80 of his affidavit).  In his testimony, Dvir said: "Lior said Take It or Live It, you can take it with black money, I told him that I have to support my family and I'll take it, it's part of my salary, it's an increase in my salary" (S. 35-37, p. 17 of Prut).
90. Dvir's explanations that this is not a loan provided to him by the farm from the investment money that he himself transferred to the farm are acceptable to us, as he puts it: "Why should the defendant repay me in installments, what am I a bank? The human being... I was... He explicitly paid me a salary increase of NIS 2,500 and he told me to take it or live it and I need to have 3 children to raise and a fourth on the way and I took the money, there was no mention of a loan or 96,000 shekels" (S. 4-7, p. 18 of Prut, see also S. 16-17, at p. 21 of Prut).
91. The defendant's admission that Dvir approached him with a request to receive a salary increase (paragraph 35 of the defendant'  s affidavit, the defendant's testimony at paras. 12-15, at p. 27 of the prot), and that Dvir's  said request  was rejected by the defendant who agreed to Dvir's alternative request to receive a loan from the investment funds; constituted, in our opinion, a claim of admission and dismissal that was not proven at all.  The defendants did not meet the burden imposed on them and did not prove their version  both with respect to the provision of the loan or the return of the investment, and with respect to the date of the beginning of the transfer of the sum of NIS 2,500 to Dvir; arguments that on the factual level require objective evidence and support that the defendants did not place before us.  The defendants did not submit a written document or loan agreement attesting to the provision of a loan to Dvir as alleged, private, the condition and the term of that loan.  The amount of the loan is not even reflected or documented in the pay slips.  The defendants also did not provide a reasonable explanation for these omissions (the defendant's testimony at paras. 1-9, pp. 27, paras. 21-28, p. 28, paras. 3, paras. 14-15, p. 29 of the protégé).
92. Second, the parties do not dispute that the meeting in which they agreed to pay NIS 2,500 to Dvir took place at the home of Mr. Omer Friedman (hereinafter – Friedman) and was attended by Dvir, the defendant, Mr. Guy and Mr. Friedman. Mr. Guy stated in his affidavit that Dvir requested an increase of NIS 2,500 and was rejected by the defendant, and therefore Dvir asked that the farm provide him with a loan from his investment funds (paragraphs 11-14 of Mr. Guy's affidavit), and the defendant refused, but Dvir continued to exert pressure on him and the defendant agreed to his request to transfer the sum of NIS 2,500 to him every month as a loan (paragraphs 15-16 of Mr. Guy's affidavit), while Mr. Guy declares "This, I know from Lior, who told me about it in real time and throughout the period from the end of 2016" (paragraph 16 of his affidavit).  Thus, according to Mr. Guy's version, at that meeting the parties did not reach an agreement regarding the payment of the sum of NIS 2,500, but rather it was agreed afterwards, and Mr  . Guy knew about the agreements from the defendant.  This version contradicts  the defendant's version in his testimony that Mr. Guy and Mr. Friedman witnessed that Dvir asked the farm to lend him NIS 10,000 every four months of his investment money, and as he stated:

"A:                And then he said to me, and then he said to me, pay me, give me back 2,500 shekels,