As stated, a notice of dismissal or resignation must be explicit, so that the notice made in the "Idna Dereitha" does not teach us about the intention of either of the parties to bring the employment relationship to an end.
"The rule is that a man's intention is measured by his words, or his written statements. However, people express their will and intention in other ways as well. Likewise, a person sometimes says something that is clear to the listener that he does not mean.
An exception to the rule, because intention is measured according to what is said, relates to things that were said in a moment of anger and irritation, that is, in the era of dereitha. The employee-employer relationship, which exists for a long period of time and is related to rights and duties, cannot be severed by things said without settling the mind, without intention or thought.
Inthe National Labor Court Hearing 32/26-3[4], at p. 152, it is stated:
"It will certainly not be for the sake of the proper and the existence of the employee-employer relationship, if whenever things are said in a difficult time of irritation, without pause for judgment and first thought, the speaker will be caught up in what he is saying, and they will draw binding conclusions from the words... Hence, each case must be examined according to its circumstances, and to see whether the person who said the words of dismissal or resignation really intended to bring about the desired result from what was said, that is, to the end of the relationship.
When things are written or said under normal conditions, there is no reason to doubt that the writer or the speaker did indeed mean the obvious result, but when things are said in the age of dereitha, all the circumstances must be examined in order to get to the bottom of the speaker's mind, and to see whether he really meant what he said, and wished to bring about an end to the relationship.'"
(National Labor Court Hearing 55/220-3 Golan-Levy, [published in Nevo] PDA 28, 377, 383 (1995), see also Labor Appeal (National) 1333/04 Bayolo Teresita Lugasi, [published in Nevo], February 6, 2006).
- As we mentioned above, The relationship between the parties must be examined in the family context - Personal and not only in the professional aspect. It was proven that the plaintiff was Levy's protégé who helped him financially over the years, He showered him and his family with gifts, Hydrogen Shared Travels"and even provided the plaintiff with financial support High and steady Every month. During the meeting from the day 21.3.11 Levy felt that the plaintiff was trying to impose his position on him, Although Levy is the company's manager and has the sole authority to manage it. Levy suspected the plaintiff of acting with foreign motives that were not for the benefit of the company when he sought to carry out the transaction in dispute and sought to clarify whether the plaintiff was acting with foreign motives. The Plaintiff, Instead of responding to a substantive response, Left the place without saying a word. Levy, who felt hurt, hurled the trial at the plaintiff: "If you leave the room like this you can leave at all". We do not believe that this sentence should in itself be regarded as a notice of dismissal. This is a sentence that was said while things were heating up in a rage, In light of the complexity of the incident that preceded it and the plaintiff's blatant behavior, he refused to respond to Levy's question and left the office demonstratively. Also, Nor does this sentence constitute a clear and unequivocal dismissal notice.
The sequence of events after that day can also indicate how the parties viewed the disconnect in their relationship. Therefore, we will proceed to examine the conduct of the parties after March 21, 2011.
- As mentioned, The plaintiff left the company's offices and there is no dispute that after that day there was a disconnect between him and Levy. According to the plaintiff's version, A two-day break and the defendants' version - Disconnect of about a week.
According to the plaintiff, he contacted Levy on March 23, 2011, on his own initiative, met with him, and at that meeting Levy informed him that his work would come to an end and that he was behind the dismissal notice (paragraphs 26-27 of the plaintiff's affidavit). On the other hand, the defendants claimed that the disconnect between Levy and the plaintiff lasted about a week and that on March 27, 2011, Levy contacted the plaintiff and asked to meet with him, and the meeting took place on March 29, 2011 (and was recorded by the plaintiff, paragraphs 12-14 of Levy's affidavit). Levy also testified that the next day, on March 28, 2011, the plaintiff arrived at the company's offices, said goodbye to the staff of the service personnel, and on this occasion he said, "I have reached the age where I have to decide which direction to develop. I decide to take the risk and move on" (paragraph 17 of Levy's affidavit). It should be noted that the testimony on behalf of the defendants testified similar things regarding the content of the separation conversation.