4 hours of overtime per week * 4.3 weeks * 20 ILS per hour * 19 months = 6,536 ILS.
Antitrust - 8,170 ILS.
Circumstances of termination of work
- According to the plaintiff, in March 2023, the manager contacted him and informed him that due to the Rebbetzin's claims regarding the failure to perform his work satisfactorily, he was no longer required to work at the site. According to him, the defendant's request to place him in an alternative place of work did not mature due to a material change in his working conditions, and therefore he terminated his employment with the defendant at the end of two years and seven months (paragraph 16 of the statement of claim and paragraph 7 of the plaintiff's affidavit ).
- According to the defendant, the plaintiff did indeed terminate his employment with defendant 2, at the request of defendant 2, sincehe could not continue to perform the work at the fixed hours and work at least 8 hours as is customary. At the same time, the plaintiff was asked to work at another site in the city of Rehovot (at the community center and other sites), where the defendant provides cleaning services. The plaintiff refused this offer, even though the defendant asked to fill the gap in the manpower situation at the other site (the defendant refers to videos and transcription of a recording on the matter - Appendix N7 to Mordechai's affidavit). The defendant further noted that prior to the letter of the law, it did not deduct payment to the plaintiff at the end of his employment for failure to give advance notice. The plaintiff is not entitled to any payment and his full entitlement was paid to him according to the law (paragraphs 18-19 of the statement of defense).
The Normative Framework
- The rule is that dismissal or resignation is a unilateral act by a party to an employment contract in which he clearly brings to the attention of the other party his intention to bring about the severance of the employment relationship between the parties. When we come to rule on the question of who brought the relationship between the employee and the employer to an end, consideration must be given to all the relevant facts and from them the conclusion must be drawn, and we should learn from the passage but from the whole picture [National Labor Court Hearing 30/3-18 Bencilovich v. "Ata" in Tax Appeal PDA 2 41].
- It was also held that the actions of the dismissal determine whether he was fired, and the actions of the resignant determine whether he resigned; how the other party will see him or how he will be considered by the other party is meaningless and irrelevant (see Discussion 32/3-58 (National) Broadcasting Authority v. Meir Eshel , PDA 4 298). When deciding which of the parties wanted to bring the relationship to an end, it is necessary to examine, inter alia, which of the parties was motivated to bring about the severance of the employment relationship. The court must decide this issue according to the factual evidence brought before it. It must be concluded not only who initiated the severance of the labor relations, but also who was the party interested in severing them. Sometimes, the party initiating the termination of work is dragged into its action following the behavior of the interested party. In such cases, what appears to be behavior indicating resignation may actually be dismissal - or vice versa.
- It should also be noted that the person who terminates the employment relationship is not obligated to perform a formal act for this purpose, and that this can be expressed in an act that indicates an unequivocal intention on the part of the employee to abandon the work (National Labor Court Hearing 35/3-85 Kfar Saba Municipality - Yaakov Cohen, PDA 7 175). We will also clarify that in the absence of a clear act of dismissal, the burden of proving the existence of dismissal is on the person who claims it to exist (Dr. Yitzhak Lubotzky, Termination of Employment Relations (Fourth Edition), chapter 2, pp. 6-8).
From the general to the individual
- Mehri presented a transcript of a conversation with the woman known as the "Rebbetzin" who informed him that she was interested in ending his assignment to defendant 2 (Appendix 9 to the plaintiff's affidavit). Mehri further stated in his affidavit that he did not agree to move to work elsewhere because Mordechai did not agree to pay him compensation before making the move, and also because he was not promised the same conditions at the alternative place of work - Mordechai did not find him a job on Saturdays or a job like the one he did for defendant 2, but only similar to it (paragraph 7 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
- However, his testimony on the subject was inconsistent, in a way that casts doubt on the entire version. At first, he denied that he had been offered a job in a nearby location (he claimed that he had been offered a job only at Yavne). Only after showing videos in the courtroom did he admit that he had indeed been offered a job at a nearby community center in Rehovot, where his wife was also employed, but claimed that he did not understand what was meant by the word "community center." This is what emerges from his testimony before us:
"Adv. Rafael: Okay, he offered you both a job in Yavne and a job at a community center in Rehovot, right?