It should be noted here that in general, the plaintiff's testimony regarding the flaws that occurred in the hearing was twisted and often he refused to answer the questions addressed to him, conduct that also damaged the credibility of his version. Therefore, the law of the claim in this head is to be dismissed.
Compensation for Unlawful Dismissal
- Beyond the plaintiff's claims regarding defects in the manner of dismissal, the plaintiff claims that the defendant did not prove that there was a cause for his dismissal. According to him, he was able to prove by means of email correspondence from the defendant's auditor praising his work, that no clear reason was found for his dismissal. The defendant, for its part, denied the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation for unlawful dismissal, although in its summaries it did not detail its claim.
- At the outset, we should mention that the burden of proof that the plaintiff was unlawfully dismissed rests on his shoulders, but he did not meet it. As stated, the defendant listed in the summons to the hearing two reasons for considering his continued employment: first, dissatisfaction with his performance. and second, his many absences. With regard to the dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's performance, in our understanding, the matter related not only to the degree of professionalism of the plaintiff, but also and perhaps mainly to his interpersonal relations, which led to loud quarrels with other employees:
"From the moment he started working, from the beginning it seemed not serious. As a finance manager, he came to work with toe and Bermuda shoes. There is no employee at the headquarters in the offices who does not have a loud fight with him and created a mess, almost three employees of the company who have worked at the company for years almost left because of him..." (p. 1 of the minutes of the preliminary meeting, lines 29-30).
The plaintiff did not claim or prove otherwise. It is true that there are correspondence that he submitted that praise his professionalism. At the same time, he ignored other correspondence, such as that of Mr. Ofer Barak dated August 15, 2023, "in the Finance Group", in which he wrote on a professional matter, "Your answer is very bad". Therefore, our conclusion is that the correspondence presented by the plaintiff indicates professional work in the aspects discussed in those correspondences, but do not substantiate his claim that there was no ground for his dismissal that entitles him to compensation.