Thus, in view of the corporate structure of the defendants, which the plaintiff also did not dispute, the role of the headquarters that he performed, and the totality of the evidence that was placed before us, our position is that the plaintiff did not prove that the employment was jointly operated by all six companies, including that he did not prove that the registration in his pay slips did not reflect the identity of the real employer. Therefore, we determine that defendant 1, Rani Koren Ltd., is and only she was the plaintiff's employer and therefore the relevant defendant.
- Dismissal of the claims against defendants 2-6: In accordance with the aforesaid determination regarding the identity of the plaintiff's employer, defendant 1 Rani Koren Company in a tax appeal only, all claims against defendants 2-6 should be dismissed. This includes the claim for compensation for not notifying the employee of his working conditions, insofar as it relates to defendants 4, 5 and 6 who did not employ the plaintiff at all (clause C of the plaintiff's "demands" in the amended statement of claim), andthe claim for wages for work that he allegedly performed for them[2].
- This is also appropriate, with the necessary changes, for the plaintiff's claim for additional wages for all of the aforesaid from defendant 1. All of the tasks he performed were part of the plaintiff's role as CFO of the network, and therefore here too the claim for additional salary is unfounded and unproven and should be rejected.
Compensation for an unsigned employment agreement and failure to notify the employee of his working conditions
- Factual basis: The facts necessary for these issues, as clarified by the Tribunal, arise from the pleadings submitted by the parties, from the documents and affidavits submitted in support of the pleadings, and from the testimonies heard before us.
- On May 29, 2023, the plaintiff was given a job interview at the chain's offices in Kfar Adumim by the declarant, Kfir Barak, who was also intended to be the direct supervisor, during which the plaintiff and Mr. Kfir Barak agreed on the basic working conditions. In the meantime, it was agreed that the position that the plaintiff would fill would be the chain's CFO (p. 9, line 15). We will add that although at that time the plaintiff may not have known exactly who all the companies operating the network were, the impression that remains is that this is a 'technical' matter in essence; It was also agreed upon the amount of the initial salary that the plaintiff was supposed to earn: ILS 21,000, and according to Mr. Kfir Barak, also on the future 'salary brackets', to the extent that the plaintiff persists in his position and the employer is satisfied with him (p. 46, line 4). The plaintiff is of the opinion that in that conversation he raised a demand for a "car". In the afternoon of the same day, a WhatsApp correspondence began between the plaintiff and Mr. Kfir Barak, in which the latter inquired with the plaintiff about the amount of severance pay he had for severance pay; his ID number, and subsequently wrote:
"Itzik, I tried to look for our employment agreements, everything was on Rivki's computer (the employee that the plaintiff replaced) and she is in Turkey