(S. 26-35, p. 31 of Prut).
He later added, "We did not receive the funds that were needed, and everything was fictitious, and we are asking for this money, including the money we invested there, and that was the reason for leaving" (paragraphs 19-21, p. 33 of the protégé, and also paragraphs 10-15, 33-42 of Dvir's affidavit).
- Noam raised a similar argument in paragraph 19 of his affidavit, and in his testimony before us he stated the following:
"When we started to understand that Lior, while we work and give our souls, and Lior comes every time and promises us that he will take care of us and he will take care of us and he loves us, and we are like his children, and that he appreciates us and with the other hand he lies to us and steals for us and prepares for us from the first day, today I understand it, from the first day he took us to work he planned the day of our dismissal..." (paras. 35 ff., p. 42 of the protégé). And then he continues: "And this is the way he works, he deceives people and steals them until it explodes, and then he gets dirty on them everywhere and he has a history like that. And the lack of... The non-payment of pensions and social benefits was perhaps 40 workers on the farm in the last 15 years, all of them are like this" (S. 6-9, p. 43 of Prot., see also paragraphs 12-19, 33-42 of Noam's affidavit, and Appendix 13 to Noam's affidavit: S . 1-6, p. 9, S. 20-21, p. 12, S. 1-2, S. 14-17, S. 10, pp. 10-13, p. 17, S. 19-21, p. 18, S. 11-12, p. 22, S. 8, S. 16-17, p. 27 of the transcript).
- On the other hand, the defendant's version did not leave a reliable impression on us. We were not persuaded that the plaintiffs announced their resignation on the grounds that the work was not suitable for them, as the defendants claimed (paragraph 42 of the statements of defense. Furthermore, we will add that we were also not persuaded that the plaintiffs "abandoned" the farm in September 2020, after they took the investment money in order to evade their obligations to participate in the farm's losses, after they were presented with financial reports, and after the defendant refused to rent the farm to them (paragraphs 41-42, 59, 77 of the defense class in the Dvir claim, paragraphs 45, 47, 59, 77-78 of the statement of defense in the Noam suit, andparagraphs 40-45 of the defendant's affidavit in Dvir's claim).
- They were also not convinced as to the circumstances of Noam's alleged termination of employment, in his affidavit the defendant claimed that "the discovery of the astonishing fact (no less so) that the plaintiff was not at all working on the farm for 5 months was the fault that ultimately led the plaintiff to leave the workplace immediately in September the following day" (paragraph 44 of the affidavit); since, if the defendant found out about Noam's absence as early as 08/05/2019, How was this revelation that led to Noam's immediate resignation in September 2019?
- With regard to the third condition – giving notice before resignation: First, we will clarify that even if the plaintiffs had not proven that they gave notice prior to the termination of their employment, and this is not the case with which we determine, the exception exists "whereby failure to give notice will not negate the right to pay severance pay when it is clear that the employer cannot or does not intend to act to correct the tangible deterioration or circumstances, or in cases where the employee's working conditions are substantially inferior to the conditions of work according to the provisions of the law" (SMara case above). In our view, it is sufficient that the defendants authorized the transfer of funds to the pension fund only after the filing of the lawsuit, in order to prove that if the claim had not been for the defendants there would have been no intention to correct their omissions, this is also evident from the delay in payment of salary for the month of 09/2019, after conversations took place between the parties, according to the defendants, including a meeting on September 23, 2019 in light of the plaintiffs' resignation notice.
- Moreover, it was proven that the plaintiffs warned and even gave advance notice before terminating their employment. The termination of the plaintiffs' employment was made after discussions with the defendant and in coordination with him (Appendix 13 to Noam's affidavit, paras. 15-20, pp. 13 of the transcript). The plaintiffs' testimony was consistent and coherent, and was supported by correspondence between Noam and the defendant that the defendants attached, as detailed below.
- In their affidavits, the plaintiffs claimed that "... It should be noted that the termination of the work was carried out after a discussion with the defendant, while updating the defendant and full coordination with the defendant regarding the date of termination of the work" (paragraph 15 of Dvir's affidavit, paragraph 19 of Noam's affidavit). In his testimony before us, Dvir repeated his version and gave the following: "So first of all, we left the farm after we warned Lior for almost a month and a half about the situation that we... They didn't pay us and he said he would bring us replacements and he didn't bring us replacements. The utensils that were on the farm are above... They are over 35 years old without a license without insurance, when I warned him that it was dangerous, these tools were broken, these tools were in a dilapidated state, in a fragile state, there was no way to deal with them even and they were like that on the day I arrived and the day I left. Now this warning of ours when we told him that we wanted a replacement, not only the one we warned him as well, we also told him to bring a replacement, to bring a replacement, and then he told me, he took me aside and told me, "You're the best, you're the best, you're the best, you're going to stay here, you're going to be a manager, we're going to send Noam to go from here, and vice versa, he's done to Noam afterwards for me for this whole month and a half" (Q. 7-17, 25 of the protégé).
- Dvir's testimony is consistent with that of Noam, who said: "When we already informed him that we were resigning and leaving and he had already started throwing these lies in all directions, he came to me separately and said, 'Listen, I know you're okay, it's Dvir that he's wrong, come stay with you and manage the farm. And then he went and said exactly the same thing to Dvir" (S. 24-28, p. 43 of Prut).
- The defendant's claim in paragraph 47 of affidavitand in Noam's lawsuit that the plaintiffs abandoned the farm at the end of September, without giving notice to organize, is inconsistent with the correspondence between him and Noam dated October 1, 2019, which was attached as Appendix 14 to the defendants' affidavit, which shows that it was the defendant who postponed the holding of a meeting to coordinate and arrange the termination of the plaintiffs' employment, including overlapping. Due to its importance, the following are the things that were written in the correspondence:
"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."