This court and the Supreme Court in its case law, as well as legal scholars in their writings, noted the uniqueness of the employment contract as an ongoing relationship contract, that the employment contract is treated as a contract of cooperation based on a relationship of trust and the duty of loyalty that applies to the parties to it. The duty of loyalty, the duty of good faith, and the duty of fairness deriving from the employment contract constitute the basis for fair employment relations. The employee and the employer are not rivals on opposite sides of the fence, and their mutual duty is not to find themselves in a conflict of interest. For our purposes, the words of Vice President Elisheva Barak-Ososkin are relevant recently, in the judgment in the Lifshitz case:
"The employee-employer relationship is a close and ongoing relationship. They require increased good faith and loyalty. Good faith is one in which each party not only takes care of its own interests, but also refrains from harming the interests of the other......"
Regarding the public-normative aspect of the duty of fairness between an employee and his employer, Justice Strasberg-Cohen said in the Vargus case:
"Consideration must be given to the public interest in setting a norm of behavior characterized by fairness and good faith. In principle, such a balance requires that an employee who has retired from the workplace protect the trade secrets of his previous employer, fulfill his fiduciary duty to him, and will not enrich himself at his own expense unlawfully."
Thus, the realization of the legitimate interests of the employer and his employee is contingent on the existence of rules of conduct in which "man to man - man" to the extent that they have not been able to rise to the level of "man to man - angel."
(Labor Appeal 189/03 Girit in Tax Appeal - Mordechai Aviv, given on December 18, 2003, paragraphs 18-19).
- The defendants claim that the plaintiff knew that he was moving to a competing company, but an examination of the evidence shows that the defendant only parted ways with the plaintiff (P/6):
- The defendant did not disclose to the plaintiff which company he was moving to, only took the trouble to point out that he was negotiating with companies, but there was no obligation on an employee to find out where he intended to work, but the defendant traveled during that period to a conference abroad on behalf of the plaintiff and met customers there (p. 71):
You should know that this statement is also a statement that is not true. But let's start with you agreeing with me, that if you had told Shahar in this conversation that you were negotiating with a competing company, he wouldn't have given you advance notice, would he?