First, in the absence of the consent of the direct parties to the proceeding, it is not possible to give effect to the agreements of the parties required in this proceeding. However, the necessary parties have a way to validate their agreements within the framework prescribed by law.
Second, the necessary parties' agreements, which are intended to change the existing legal situation, cannot apply retroactively to pending proceedings. Therefore, they will be examined in due course only in the framework of future proceedings that will come, if they do, to the courts.
- The claims of Mr. Babiev and Mr. Ben-Shushan include cogent rights. Therefore, according to the current legal situation, the investigation of these claims should not be transferred to arbitration. For these reasons, the proceedings in question will continue to be conducted before the labor courts. Accordingly, there is no need to rule on the application of March 2, 2025."
The proceeding before us
- On October 28, 2021 and March 24, 2022, preliminary hearings were held in the proceeding. On April 23, 2023, an evidentiary hearing was held, in which the plaintiff was questioned about his affidavit. On behalf of the defendant, the declarant on its behalf, Mr. Oz Arlan, the defendant's CEO, was interrogated. After the court was unable to bring the parties to agreements that would make a decision in the proceeding, an order for summaries was issued. At the same time, on May 4, 2023, the defendant filed a motion to add additional evidence, which was accepted in the court's decision of May 30, 2023.
- The parties submitted written summaries, with the last letter of summaries being collected for the file on June 17, 2024. With the decision of the National Court on the application for leave to appeal dated March 18, 2025, it is now possible to decide the claim before us, and we will turn to this now.
Discussion and Decision
The circumstances of the plaintiff's termination of employment and entitlement to severance pay
- According to the plaintiff, he was employed by the defendant on fixed-term agreements, starting with the 2012/2013 season, when during the 2017/18 season, the defendant abused him and made him an outcast. On October 14, 2017, after a game against Hapoel Be'er Sheva, the defendant's then-CEO approached the plaintiff and told him not to come to training and games anymore. If that were not enough, the defendant did not act to enter into a new agreement with the plaintiff on the same terms, and thus in effect fired him. In view of the above, The plaintiff petitions for payment of severance pay by virtue of section 9 of the Severance Pay Law, 5723-1963 (hereinafter: "the Severance Pay Law") (see paragraphs 12-15 of the statement of claim, paragraphs 37-44, 48-51 of the plaintiff's summaries).
- The defendant claims that during the 2017/18 season, there was mutual dissatisfaction between the parties, and therefore we discussed the possibility of releasing the plaintiff from the team. The defendant denies that she took any 'ostracism' actions against the plaintiff or that she informed him not to attend the group's activities. At a certain point, the defendant offered the plaintiff a new employment contract, but he refused its terms and eventually continued to play throughout the season. Towards the end of the season, the plaintiff himself approached the defendant and asked to be allowed to leave so that he could go and audition for another soccer club abroad. At the same time, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the exercise of the option to terminate the engagement between the parties. Accordingly, the engagement between the parties came to an end on May 31, 2018. With this in mind, the defendant argues that it was the plaintiff who sought to terminate the engagement between the parties, and in any case it was not obligated to offer him to renew the contract, since the agreement was made for several seasons.
In its summary, the defendant claims that it did not fire the plaintiff at all, but only exercised the option granted to it in the contract to terminate the engagement with him. The defendant further argues that the plaintiff never objected or complained against the option clause in the agreement and even admitted that a similar clause existed in the rest of his employment agreements in the years preceding it.
- As for our decision. As stated, clause 2.4 of the plaintiff's employment agreement from 2017 stipulated as follows:
2.4" Option