We do not believe that the words that the plaintiff gave as a "farewell speech" after so many years in the company are sufficient to point to the factual set that actually took place. However, as we will detail below, we found that according to the evidence presented, the plaintiff's version in the matter was contradicted, while the defendants' version was proven (although there was confusion regarding the dates on which the defendants stated: the recorded conversation took place on March 28, 2011).
First, the defendants' version is consistent with the email message sent by Ze'ev Kahane, the company's accountant, shortly after the events of March 29, 2011 (Appendix A to Kahane's affidavit mentioned above).
The transcript of the conversation dated March 28, 2011 also shows that there was an 8-day break between the parties (this was stated by Mr. Levy, and the plaintiff did not claim otherwise during that conversation), and that there was another conversation between them, prior to the conversation that was recorded (emphases added - D.f.):
"Dan: After we have both been aware of this for eight days, I think we have nothing left but to summarize the shape of the e, the manner of parting in the most delicate and beautiful way, because after all, we are a family, and I hope that we will continue to be a family" (page 1 of the transcript of the conversation, lines18-22)
"Yoram:...In the previous conversation we talked about, you said that there are threads that I have already closed, that I am."
On the other hand, the plaintiff's claim that he called Levy on 23 March 2011 and even met with him on that day was merely argued and no reference was brought to support it (for example, no printout of telephone calls or diary was presented).
Hence the conclusion that after the incident of March 21, 2011, there was a one-week break between the plaintiff and the defendants.
- The defendants claimed that two days after the"Incident" From the day 21.3.11 The defendant learned that the plaintiff was contacting the company's customers and that he had begun to market forklifts independently, and this is the reason for the disconnection of the mailbox"To his (Section 11 Levy's affidavit). Levy was not questioned about the plaintiff's approach to customers, and therefore it must be determined that this version was not contradicted. The plaintiff's testimony also indicates that immediately after his dismissal, He had conversations with the company's customers (According to him,, They told him that they had learned that he had been fired from his job (Section 83 To the plaintiff's affidavit)). In his cross-examination, the plaintiff avoided mentioning which customers he spoke with (Page 19 For the record, ShuroT 23-25) He later clarified that he was not interested in answering the question (Page 20 For the record, Row 14).
The fact that the plaintiff concealed the identity of the customers with whom he spoke, even though this matter was expressed in his affidavit, strengthens the defendants' claim that the plaintiff's approach to the customers was not in the best interest of the company and it is doubtful whether it was done in connection with the work.