The defendant writes in response: "I don't understand that in recent weeks you have been tempting me (surprisingly) with a new idea every time... Started renting the herd for a few years ??? After that, for a year??? I told you it wasn't relevant, in the end you said you wanted to leave, is there anything new?? ", and in another message, the defendant wrote , "Regarding a meeting, we did not close for today, we can have another day."
- And more. The defendants' claims that a meeting was held on September 23, 2019, in which the plaintiffs announced their resignation, "after a number of meetings were held between Lior, the plaintiff and Noam during the month of September 2019. In these meetings, Lior presented the company's financial statements to the plaintiff and Noam, which reflected losses to the company. In addition, the plaintiff and Noam made an offer to rent the farm from the company with all its contents. However, this offer was rejected out of hand by Lior and the company" (paragraph 77 of the statement of defense in Dvir's lawsuit, paragraph 76 of the statement of defense in Noam's lawsuit, paragraph 42 of the defendants' affidavit in Dvir's lawsuit); testify that the plaintiffs warned the defendants before their resignation.
- In addition, an examination of the transcript of the conversation between Noam and the defendant shows that the plaintiffs' resignation was made in coordination with the defendant and with his consent. The following are what was said in the framework:
"Lior: ... You were shocked that I agreed that you would resign. You didn't plan them at all (you planned them - L.T.S.) and I have that documented as well.
Noam: Did you agree that we would resign? That you agreed that we would resign?
Lior: What is my consent? I accepted your resignation" (S. 17-20, p. 13 of the conversation track, Appendix 13 to Noam's affidavit).
- In summary, it was proven that the plaintiffs gave the farm an opportunity to correct its failures, and to pay them protective rights to which they are entitled by law, including deposits to a pension fund, and this is sufficient to determine that the plaintiffs met the third condition of giving notice before resigning. Moreover, the combination of correspondence and transcription of the conversation between Noam and the defendant, the testimony of the plaintiffs and the defendant's admission that a number of meetings took place in the month of 09/2019, with the last meeting taking place on 23/09/2019, and Noam and Dvir's request to provide them with replacements and to coordinate the termination of their employment, and in Noam's words, "the schedule and conditions of departure", omits the ground under the defendants' claim that the plaintiffs abandoned the farm in a planned manner. Immediately and without prior notice.
- He noted that even if we had determined that the plaintiffs had not given advance notice/notice prior to resignation, and this was not the case, in our opinion the plaintiffs would not have been obligated to give advance notice, since "Section 10(1) of the Advance Notice for Dismissal and Resignation Law, 5761-2001 states that the provisions of sections 2 to 7 of the Law will not apply "to an employee, in special circumstances due to which he should not be required to work during the period of advance notice prescribed in this Law". An employee whose salary has not been paid cannot be expected to continue his work despite the refusal to pay him his wages. In Labor Appeal (National) 30021-02-12 Yitzhak Attias - Construction Works Company in Tax Appeal - Kirbeek Kudis [Published in Nevo] (December 8, 2014) it was held that: "This means, for example, cases in which the employee's obligation to work is intertwined and contingent on the existence of an obligation on the part of the employer, so that in the latter violation the employee is released from the first obligation."" [Labor Appeal (National) 60336-05-17 Nehora Agency A.D. In a tax appeal - Ami Emerick Schreiber, dated 11/04/2019].
- In order not to result in a deficiency, and more than necessary, the defendants' argument to deny the plaintiffs' entitlement to compensation is rejected, as it is an extension of a prohibited front that was raised in the defendant's affidavits, and even after the defendants paid the plaintiffs money upon the filing of their statements of defense. The argument is also rejected on its merits, since claims regarding damages, negligence, fraud and theft (paragraphs 16, 34 and 39 of the defendants' summaries) were made casually, were not proven, and are subject to dismissal. The plaintiffs were questioned regarding these claims, and their testimony was consistent, coherent, and left a credible impression on us. The plaintiffs denied the aforementioned claims, recalling that in the decision of 08/07/2024, the defendants' request to attach an appraiser's opinion on their behalf was rejected, and the reasons for the decision are an integral part of the judgment.
- It should be noted that as emerged from Dvir's testimony, the complaint filed by the defendants with the Israel Police on 06/04/2021 (Appendix 9 to the defendant's affidavit) was closed by the Israel Police, and his testimony was not concealed. The impression is that these arguments were raised in order to disavow charges, to the extent that they apply to the defendants. With regard to the allegations concerning criminal acts attributed to Noam, which have not been proven, we will clarify that the court does not turn a blind eye or downplay the severity of those acts, to the extent that they were committed, but the court is not the right forum for investigating that suspicion.
- In general, we determine that the plaintiffs resigned by law, and therefore they are entitled to severance pay, while the defendants' claim of denying severance pay is rejected.
- The claim for advance notice fees – we will precede the beginning, and we will note right now that the plaintiffs' claim for advance notice is rejected. Similarly, the defendants' claims for deduction for failure to give advance notice are also rejected, since it has been proven, as detailed above and will be detailed below, that the plaintiffs gave advance notice before resigning.
- It should be noted that Dvir's claim for the exchange of advance notice was first raised in his affidavit (section 42), since a perusal of the statement of claim shows that this component was not claimed by Dvir at all, and this is sufficient to bring about the dismissal of his claim. However, the claim is also dismissed on its merits, as will be detailed below.
- The plaintiffs did not prove their entitlement to advance notice, both on the normative and factual levels. The plaintiffs did not clarify the normative source of their alleged entitlement to advance notice, nor did they clarify how their testimony regarding the giving of notice before they resigned is consistent with the claim of relief in lieu of prior notice.
- We would like to emphasize, once again, that in his testimony Dvir emphasized that he had given the defendant advance notice/notice before resigning, after he and Noam had studied the issue, and had learned to know that the defendant must be given advance notice before resignation in order to receive severance pay, and in his words:
"... We read the rules and understood how long it would take to inform him that we were resigning because of this outcome.