"Q. The team approached you at the beginning of the season and you didn't want to.
- That's right. We talked at the beginning of the season and he told me Vector I don't have a lot of money I have this and that . I told him it wasn't right for me to try to exhaust myself in Nazareth Illit. My wife opposed the whole move for me to return to Hapoel Jerusalem. Because it wasn't easy, we didn't get salaries at the time, I said this is my home. I decided to come back after a few months after the season started."
(Prov. p. 40, s. 23-27).
- It is therefore clear that the plaintiff went for a year of recuperation in Nazareth but did not return at the end of it. It should be emphasized that he was loaned to Nazareth without consideration at his request (paragraph 29 of Sassi's affidavit, which was not concealed). He and his wife found work and decided to stay in Nazareth. The plaintiff admitted that Victor had asked him to return and he refused to return. There was a break until 12/02 This break interrupts the continuity of his employment as a seasonal worker as well as when he began working in an external place, already in August he severed his connection with both Nazareth to which he was loaned and with the defendants, and when he refused to come to the team at the time he was called upon to do so, he effectively resigned.
- The plaintiff started again "a few months after the season began", i.e., not even on the regular dates of the "season". Therefore, the contract was signed "for the second half of the 2001/2002 season" (see the wording of section 25 of the 2001/2002 season). The contract refers to the period indicated in which "from 26/12/01 to 31/5/02", six months not for two consecutive seasons, does not grant the right to severance pay.
- In the statement of claim, the plaintiff's attorney claims: "In addition to the employment agreement in a criminal appeal that was entered into between the parties on December 26, 2001, a written contract was also signed which included only part of the salary agreed upon by the parties orally. It should be emphasized that this agreement is for a formal purpose only, in order to obtain the approval of the Budget Control Institute next to the Football Association in order for the team to be approved to participate in league games. The plaintiff did not raise the burden of proof of this, not even at the outset of evidence. On the contrary, he confirms that he received sums beyond what was written in the contract, but only Dado Dahan's bank accounts were attached to the statement of claim, and no account of Amir Gola was attached, nor were such references attached to his affidavit. This claim was made in vain and was not proven even by the slightest piece of evidence, despite its severity.
- In summary of the above: The plaintiff resigned from the worker due to moving to Nazareth and finding a job, despite the worker's request to return, he even refused his version. Time passed between seasons and he went out to work at Rav Bariach. He was rehired in the middle of a season for a five-month period. Therefore, he is not entitled to severance pay for the last period of a few months or at all.
- In addition, the aforementioned plaintiff admits that if he had received the grant, he would not have been a severance pay claimant at all (p. 39, paras. 12-14 of July 8, 2010) and it should be emphasized that contrary to his affidavit, no contract was entered into with him for the period 89-90, 90-91 (p. 37, paras. 1-4). In the 1993-94 season, he played only six months, so the whole of the streak claimed regarding his period of employment is also hidden, and for this reason his claim for consecutive seasons and severance pay is also lawful.
For the avoidance of doubt, the period between the end of his loan to Nazareth, and the work he and his wife found in Nazareth and his refusal to urge Mr. Yona to return to Jerusalem, constitutes a break in continuity not due to the loan