Employment Period and Circumstances of Termination of Work
- The plaintiff claims that he worked as a cleaning worker from April 1, 2021, until October 3, 2021, for a period of six months . The plaintiff claims that on Sunday, October 3, 2021, without any explanation or prior conversation, his manager, Mr. Mordechai, contacted him and informed him that as of the next day, he was no longer required to work. The plaintiff was dismissed on October 3, 2021, immediately, without prior notice or payment in lieu of prior notice, and therefore he is entitled to payment in lieu of advance notice in the sum of ILS 1,920 (= 6 days * 8 hours * ILS 40 per hour).
- The defendant claims that the plaintiff worked for the defendant from April 1, 2021, until October 18, 2021, which is 6.5 months of employment. According to the defendant , the plaintiff stopped his work voluntarily. According to her, the plaintiff was asked to move to another site in the city of Rehovot, but he refused every offer and abandoned his job. Since the plaintiff was not fired, he is not entitled to advance notice. The plaintiff should have given the defendant advance notice - which was not given. The defendant noted that at first she deducted him from his salary for not giving him prior notice, but later on, and beyond the letter of the law, she agreed not to offset it and made an amendment to the pay slip. Despite this, the defendant reserves its right to deduct the sum for failure to give advance notice in the sum of ILS 1,397 (= ILS 29.12 * 8 hours * 6 months).
After reviewing the arguments, evidence, and testimonies, we reached the following conclusion:
- According to what is stated in the pay slip, the plaintiff began working for the defendant on April 1, 2021 (as stated in the attendance report submitted to the case).
- The plaintiff presented contradictory versions regarding the date of termination of his employment with the defendant, and retracted what was stated in the statement of claim and in his affidavit. While in the affidavit he claimed that he had finished working on October 3, 2021, in his testimony in court, he testified that he had finished working in the 11th month (the plaintiff's testimony on p. 3, paras. 1-5 of the pro of the hearing of 31.05.2023), later he testified that he finished working on 25.10.2021 or 27.10.2021 (in the testimony of the plaintiff on p. 4, paras. 14-15, p. 4, s. 28, p. 6, paras. 30-31 of the pro of the hearing of 31.05.23).
- However, according to what is stated in the attendance report submitted to the file (a report prepared by fingerprint signature), the last work day that the plaintiff signed an attendance clock was on Friday - October 15, 2021 (Appendix N5 to Mordechai's affidavit ), and according to the attendance report in Excel - his last work day was on October 17, 2021 (a day that the defendant claims was not reported by the plaintiff by signing the attendance clock). According to the defendant, the plaintiff abandoned his job on October 17, 2021, and therefore the employment relationship ended on October 18, 2021 (Monday). In support of her claim, the defendant refers to a conversation between Mordechai and the plaintiff (which took place at the end of the employment relationship) in which Mordechai stated that the plaintiff left on October 17, 2021 (in Appendix N4 to Mordechai's affidavit).
- In any case, it is clear that the plaintiff did not finish work on October 3, 2021, but at a later date in mid-October 2021.
- As to the circumstances of termination of employment - in his affidavit, the plaintiff stated that Mordechai told him to go home on October 3, 2021, after my uncle (apparently a source in defendant 2) said that he did not want the plaintiff to continue working there (Appendix N4 to Mordechai's affidavit). In his testimony in court, the plaintiff noted that Mordechai told him this in the middle of the day - at 2:00 P.M. (the plaintiff's testimony on p. 4, paras. 18-19 of the hearing of May 31, 2023).Mordechai confirmed in his affidavit that the plaintiff did indeed stop working at the yeshiva at the request of defendant 2 (paragraph 20 of Mordechai's affidavit) and that the plaintiff left at two o'clock (as stated in Appendix N4 to Mordechai's affidavit - on p. 2, paras. 5-8 of the transcript of the conversation).
- The factual dispute between the parties relates to the question of whether the defendant offered the plaintiff another job at another site. In his affidavit, the plaintiff did not relate at all to the offer made to him. However, in his testimony in court, he confirmed that Almog told him to come and work at another site (the plaintiff's testimony at p. 5, paras. 9-12 of the hearing of May 31, 2023). However, when he was asked whether Mordechai later called him and asked him why he did not come to work elsewhere, he claimed that the offer to work elsewhere came after he had already been fired (it seems that his claim regarding dismissal related to the termination of his work at the yeshiva and not to the dismissal of the defendant, the plaintiff's testimony at p. 5, paras. 5, paras. 13-23 of the pro of the hearing of May 31, 2023).
- A transcript of a conversation between him and Mordechai that revolved around the payment for the month of October 2021 also shows that after his employment at defendant 2 was terminated, he was offered a job elsewhere, but he refused (Appendix N4 to Mordechai's affidavit - p. 3, paras. 1-12 of the transcript of the conversation). See also Mordechai's testimony at p. 56, paras. 37-39 and at p. 57, paras. 1-19 of the hearing of September 30, 2024):
"Batum: He told me here, we don't need workers, he told me.