Testimonies
We heard the plaintiff's testimony.
On behalf of the defendant, Adv. Yaron Cohen, the custodian of the body and property, testified about the defendant.
and Adv. Dov Firer, an expert on behalf of the defendant.
Decision
- After hearing the testimonies, reviewing the documents that were submitted and examining the arguments of the parties, we came to the conclusion that the claim should be dismissed.
What was the plaintiff's "work"
- According to the plaintiff, she operated and handled the defendant's assets on an ongoing basis (renting, negotiations, signing lease agreements, dealing with the authorities, dealing with the management companies, transferring assets from tenant to tenant, managing the books and submitting reports and dealing with the accountant and bookkeeping) and according to her, she was available 24/7 and was the liaison person with all the various parties. According to the plaintiff, it was the management of one man. However, despite her claim that she managed the mother's assets 24/7 with full availability, it turned out strangely that foreclosures were imposed on the assets by the Tax Authority (Appendix N/7) that the plaintiff did not know about at all and did not inform the custodian of the foreclosures, or at least it was not proven otherwise by the plaintiff that she handled the cancellation of the foreclosures.
- There is no dispute that the plaintiff took care of her mother's assets, which is customary within a family when the mother or father is a teenager, but the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that there was an employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- According to the plaintiff, the scope of the properties was 11 properties (the rental of the properties) and in the first two years she also managed 12 units in the property in Tel Aviv. According to her, this is an income of hundreds of thousands of shekels a year from the "business." The guardian presented a list of assets owned by the defendant during the plaintiff's "period of employment" (paragraph 16 of the guardian's affidavit) as well as a list of assets that were sold during the period (paragraph 17 of the guardian's affidavit).
- According to the guardian, during the period of the plaintiff's "employment", the defendant owned: 6 empty lots and lots in the large block, 2 warehouses, 3 offices, 7 apartments, and 20% of the apartments in the building in Tel Aviv, some of which were sold over the years (1996-2021 ).
- In any case, there is no dispute that this is property belonging to her mother and the plaintiff handled the rental and sale of the apartments over the years (hereinafter: the "business"). We will examine below whether the tests for the existence of an employment relationship between the parties were met.
- The person who claims an employment relationship has the burden of proving his claim:
"The test for determining the employee-employer relationship has evolved over the years in a way that has allowed for more and more discretion in its operation. More than once it has been clarified in case law that the test must be dynamic, one that changes according to changes in the various transaction patterns...