Labor Dispute (Jerusalem) 21052-09-23 Yitzhak Pinchas – Rani Koren Ltd.

1. The plaintiff, Mr. Yitzhak Pinchas, was employed as the CFO of the 'Stock' chain - a chain of discount stores for home products - for less than three months. The employment relationship between the parties ended with the dismissal of the plaintiff.  In the claim before us, which is relatively broad in scope, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the employment relationship was damaged from beginning to end.  In the meantime, she did not give him notice of his working conditions.  Later on, he was required to work hard at all the companies that operate the chain without being paid full wages.  He also complains about the process of his dismissal, which in his opinion was illegal, and caused him great distress.  "At the end of the bill," his employer reneged on agreeing to pay for 60 days' notice.
2. The amended claim before us was set at ILS 230,342. The plaintiff chose to represent himself, a fact that radiated on the course of the proceedings in the court, which was found, time and time again, branching out unnecessarily.  Therefore, we are left with repeated arguments of a preliminary nature, which we will open.  At that time, we will turn to clarifying the causes of action on their merits.  The necessary factual basis, whether agreed upon or disputed, is required in the appropriate chapters.  We will add here that there was a preliminary hearing and a comprehensive evidentiary hearing in which the plaintiff testified for himself.  Mr. Kfir Barak, one of its managers and owners, testified to the chain.  The parties summarized their arguments in writing.

The Motion for a Judgment in the Absence of a Defense Against Defendants 2-6

3. At the outset, the plaintiff's repeated claim in 15 separate motions[1], sometimes in a number of identical motions filed on the same day, and also in his summaries, according to which defendants 2-6 did not appear in the proceeding and did not defend themselves against it, and therefore the claim against them should be accepted in the absence of a defense. It should be noted that the Tribunal's repeated decisions during the proceeding, according to which the request should not be granted, did not satisfy the plaintiff.

In essence, it was stated that an examination of the statement of defense shows that it was filed on behalf of all the defendants: "The defendants are honored to submit their statement of defense." Mr. Ofer Barak, CEO of all the defendants, appeared for the preliminary hearing.  Later, Mr. Kfir Barak, who is one of the three senior officers of the chain, submitted an affidavit of main witness in which he referred to the claim in relation to all the defendants (see, for example: paragraphs 1, 7 and 8 of the affidavit of the main witness).  At the evidentiary stage, Mr. Kfir Barak testified that he was authorized to represent all the defendants.  In fact, throughout the proceeding, the defendants argued on behalf of the defendants why they should not be charged with any of the causes of action, and for this reason it cannot be said that they did not appear in the proceeding or did not defend themselves against it.