We would like to emphasize: If the plaintiff believed that he was fired from his job in light of Levy's remarks on March 21, 2011, then he was wrongful in his actions in addressing the company's customers after his dismissal. If the plaintiff did not see himself as having been fired from his job and talking to the company's customers as being actually employed by the company, then he has no explanation as to why he refrained from coming to the company's offices and working on a regular basis, or why he did not provide the names of the customers with whom he spoke.
- Although the plaintiff contacted around the - 21.3.11 to the company's customers, even if there was a defect in its conduct, In practice, OsteoporosisVeko From your email inbox, which is A Necessary Move in the Circumstances of the Matter, Indicates an intention to sever the employment relationship between the parties.
- There is no dispute that after the- 21.3.11 The plaintiff did not come to work and Levy did not contact him and did not ask him to come to work. We are aware of the family bond between the parties, Given Levy's advanced age and the fact that Levy supported the plaintiff over the years and saw him as"His protégé". Levy also testified that he expected the plaintiff to contact him and ask (As he puts it: - "He will beg") Continue to work at the company (Page 31 For the record, Lines 1-2). However, in the circumstances in which Levy slammed the plaintiff, she said something that could be interpreted as a notice of dismissal, According to which the plaintiff can not return to work at all, Although it was delivered in"Idna Dreitha", It was expected that Levy or any representative on behalf of the company would contact the plaintiff and inform him that he was required to continue working for the company and that he had not been fired from his job at all (National Labor Court Hearing 35/3-41 Immigrate -Schwartz, [Published in Nevo] Pad"7' 24, 28 In the paragraph 7 (1975)). Even if the parties had family ties - Personal, between the plaintiff and the company Also Employee Relations - Employer. In light of all of the above, The conclusion we have reached is that the plaintiff was indeed fired from his job, But after a week, the separation between the parties, They reached an agreement regarding the completion of the work. And what are the things that are supposed to be said??
- per day 28.3.11 There was a conversation between the plaintiff, Levy, Her vitality and bitter vintage, The Company's Organizational Consultant. Since the conversation was recorded by the plaintiff, It is clear that the conversation was conducted by him in a calculated manner and was directed to the areas that were convenient for him. The transcript of the conversation indicates that at this stage, The termination of the plaintiff's employment was agreed upon by both parties.
"Dan: Okay Yoram, listen, this is a difficult situation for you and me,