A: Because the previous pension agent confused me and didn't give me answers, and Lior said in the end that he wasn't the agent and that we would have to move to another agent, so we all moved to another agent.
Q: And you refused to give him the details
A: I didn't refuse to give him the details, that's all Lior refused to give him. I was, I asked and everything that was done on the financial level, on the legal level, in the signatures, in the certificates, in the finances, in the bank, the signature certificates, that's all Lior Haber, I had nothing to do with it, I had no ability to do anything about this story." (Sat 5-13, p. 29 of Prut)
- Noam's explanations also put us at ease and we decided to trust them, and these are the things he gave us in his testimony before us:
"I didn't refuse, I didn't refuse. I, after we were already at the end of the process of leaving the farm, yes, I did not agree to work with Mr. Haber's insurance agent, instead I brought my own insurance agent with whom there is correspondence in the appendices that she is trying to ask Lior, to catch Lior and get details and get answers, and Lior does not answer, does not give pay slips, does not give data and does not do any of the things that should have been done, instead he lies again" (Q. 13-18, p. 41 of the protégé).
- On the other hand, the defendants presented a number of versions regarding the non-deposit of pension funds, which were refuted by the plaintiffs' testimonies and evidence, when it was proven that the defendant stopped depositing funds to Dvir in 2015, and did not deposit money to Noam at all during his second employment period, without a satisfactory explanation. Below we will discuss the defendants' various versions regarding the default in pension fund deposits:
- The version in the statements of defense (paragraphs 73 of both statements of defense): The source of the omission is a mistake and then a lack of cooperation on the part of the plaintiffs and their demand to contact another agent.
- The version in the defendant's affidavits (paragraphs 78-79 of the affidavit in Dvir's claim, paragraph 68 of the defendant's affidavit in Noam's claim): The source of the default is Dvir's demand to stop making a deposit for the purpose of opening a new pension fund, and Noam's demand to receive the funds directly to him.
- The defendant's testimony: In his interrogation regarding the termination of the pension deposit to Dvir, the defendant stated that he had done so on Dvir's orders (s. 6, p. 11 of the protégé), which is inconsistent with the correspondence between him and Dvir, dated November 6, 2016, in which Dvir wrote to the defendant, "Etty, see why the pension does not appear" (Appendix D to Dvir's affidavit). When confronted with this correspondence, the defendant evaded providing a substantive answer and referred to the pay slips (paras. 25 ff., p. 13 of the protégé). Moreover, the defendant's alleged inquiries to Dvir were not proven, and his claim that there are recordings attesting to the inquiries were not presented (p. 12 of the protégé).
- Moreover, the defendants' claim that the plaintiffs delayed in transferring the details required for the purpose of depositing funds in the pension fund was not proven and refuted by the plaintiffs' testimony and evidence. It should be noted that we did not consider to attribute weight to the partial WhatsApp correspondence that was presented between the defendant and Noam (Appendix 14 to the defendant's affidavit), since it is not possible to learn from it about the defendant's alleged contact with the plaintiffs or the lack of cooperation on their part. On the contrary, from this correspondence we learn that Eti, apparently the bookkeeper, or the secretary, will come to deal with the matter of deposits to the pension fund and compensation only after the holiday, and in the words of the defendant, "everything is with me, you will come after the holiday and give you everything you need." In any event, the failure to present the full correspondence or to summon Eti to testify in order to refute the plaintiffs' version, which, as stated, was not challenged, acts in accordance with the defendants' obligation. In addition, the transcript of the conversation between Noam and the defendant also shows that even after the termination of their employment, Noam contacted the defendant in order to arrange the deposit of the funds to the pension fund "... Because what we have come to talk about now, Lior, is my pension, this is my compensation, and this is what I want to hear" (Appendix 13 to Noam's affidavit), while in the course of that conversation, Noam presents the defendant with regard to the "falsehood" of his claim that the failure to deposit the pension stems from the lack of cooperation on the part of the plaintiffs, as emerges from the transcript of the conversation; and these are the words that were exchanged between Noam and the defendant:
"Lior: Noam, Noam, I've been chasing you for years! Open a cash register, you're not ready even now.