Section 9 of the law states: "9(a) If an employee is employed under a fixed-term contract and the period has come to an end, he is considered for the purposes of this law as if he was dismissed unless the employer offered him to renew the contract. If the employee refuses to renew the contract, he is considered to have resigned for the purposes of this law." (emphasis mine S.S.).
Section 11(b) of the law states : "If a seasonal employee resigns after working at least three consecutive seasons in the same workplace because he was not promised continuous work in the same workplace - he is considered to have been fired."
- In Judgment 72 (Be'er Sheva) 2629/01 Davidi Ephraim v. Hapoel Be'er Sheva, as well as in Labor Appeal (National) 105/06, it was held that "the period in which the plaintiff was 'loaned' (from 1.6.90 to 4.8.91) should not be regarded as a severance of the employee-employer relationship, since it is a 'temporary severance' of the employee-employer relationship that does not interrupt the continuity of the defendant's employment period even if it exceeds 3 months, and even if during this period the loaned actor is not heard despite the defendant as an employer and does not receive any consideration - Borrowing does not turn the loaned employee into an employee of the place where the work is done." (Section 51 of the judgment). This is what the plaintiff who was loaned to Nazareth relies on.
- The defendants' argument that the plaintiffs should not be considered as having been fired from their jobs in light of their employment under a fixed-term contract should be rejected. This matter was discussed and decided inCA 9748/08 Yanai Cohen v. Ofakim Cultural Center A different appeal Samuel Rubin inTax Appeal (published in Nevo) (hereinafter: the Yanai Cohen case) and as is customary in the football industry in view of the nature of the job and in light of the summer break at the end of the recurring season of games.
- With regard to a fixed-term employment contract, it was determined that if the employee was not offered the renewal of the employment contract at the end of its fixed period, the termination of the employment relationship would be considered as dismissal. The same is true if the employee is offered to continue his employment, but the offer contains a tangible deterioration in his working conditions. Such an offer means dismissal and the subsequent termination of employment entitles the employee to severance pay, regardless of the motive that caused the employer to give his reduced offer (see: Y. Lubotzky, "Employment Contract and the Employee's Rights", Nitzan Publications 2006 edition (chapter 4), Labor Appeal [National] 1147/01 Moshe Petlock v. Bnei Yehuda Association, August 28, 2002).
- You said by the way that it was said inLabor Appeal (National) 120/06 Shlomo Iluz - Hapoel Be'er Sheva Association for Physical Culture (unpublished) (hereinafter: the Iluz case) in this context:
"It is possible that in the event that the employer offers the employee to continue his work only a few days before the termination of his employment in a fixed-term agreement, and the employee refuses the offer because he has already committed to work at another workplace, I will find that the employee is entitled to severance pay."