Witness Mrs. A. Milstein: I gave you all the material, you had all the accounting material, didn't you see it, didn't you see the deposits of employing an employee? You had all the account sheets, I told you the secretariat, it's at all, you're really misleading here because it's really not true and vice versa, I also said that what has to do with my work in that conversation with the guardian and in all the conversations, what has to do with my work I give you all the answers, what has nothing to do with my work and from there, for which I got the salary and the word salary and the word salary came up a lot of times in all the conversations...
(p. 10)
- According to the plaintiff, she is entitled to other salary differences, but she never contacted her mother or the guardian about this matter, and even withdrew about ILS 2 million from the joint account without being able to explain why.
- The plaintiff did not consider herself an employee of her mother. The plaintiff's conduct indicates that she did not refer to herself as an employee - during the period of the engagement, the plaintiff was not paid convalescence pay. The plaintiff was in fact responsible for paying her salary (as stated, the plaintiff is an accountant) and did not pay herself convalescence pay, even though she was apparently aware of her rights.
- The payment of her "rights" during the period of employment raises questions - the plaintiff did not give any explanation by virtue of what pension contributions she was entitled to prior to 2008 (the general extension order in the economy for compulsory pensions) and according to documents from the pension fund, ILS 98,047 was transferred to her credit for the period from 1/11/11 to 12/13 (attached to the plaintiff's supplementary affidavit on July 26, 2023 and it was recorded that the payer was the defendant), but no explanation was given by the plaintiff as to why the pension contributions were stopped. The plaintiff conducted herself as she wished in a "business", not like an employee.
Was the plaintiff fired?
- The plaintiff claims that she was fired from her job when the guardian was appointed. The question of the plaintiff's dismissal is superfluous in light of our above conclusion, but we note that the plaintiff did not even know when exactly she was fired:
The witness, Mrs. A. Milstein: But as soon as they call me from the bank and from all the places where I have authorizations and powers of attorney and tell me, 'You can't do it anymore,' and block me from all the sources and relationships with the tenants that have existed all these years and he has abandoned all my activity vis-à-vis the tenants, you can't understand that I'm being fired? I can't give you the day and time.