Yoram: Yes.
Dan: But we didn't have anything, we didn't have any choice, we didn't...How can we say, our paths have parted, and you will have to find your place, not through you in our society
Yoram: Yes
Dan: After we've both been aware of this for eight days, I think we have no choice but to summarize the shape of the e, the way of saying goodbye 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.
Uzi: I also hope so.
Yoram: All right. Although as far as I'm concerned, I can tell you
Dan: Yes.
Yoram: The move, I mean the move of going out or of anger and argument, one fight or another, it, it wasn't an act of walking, but of course it's your decision, it' s what you want, I'm not, I can't do anything else."
(Emphasis added - D.f.; Page 1 of the transcript, line 12 to page 2 of the transcript, line 4).
Later in the conversation, the plaintiff reiterated that he had not contacted the company's customers and had not undermined it, and also noted that baseless rumors had spread regarding the termination of his employment, according to which he had betrayed the company's trust or that there had been a crisis in his relationship with his wife.
In summary, the parties addressed the issue of social rights and financial arrangements that must be arranged upon the termination of the plaintiff's employment with the company, including issues such as the vehicle, the telephone and the vacation revenue (page 6 of the transcript, line 10 to page 7, line 10).
- In the same conversation, the plaintiff himself referred to his departure from the company's offices and asked that it not be seen as a resignation (In his language- "Walking"). If the plaintiff believed that he was fired from his job by Levy, could have explicitly argued this at the same time. Instead of, The plaintiff chose to defend himself and explain that he did not resign from his job. The plaintiff was asked about this issue in his cross-examination (Page 11 For the record, Row 26 Up to page 12, Row 6), But even on this issue, his testimony would have evaded. Anyway, It is not clear how the plaintiff requested "That things will return to the way they were in the past" As claimed in his testimony, When in a conversation from the day 28.3.11, Real-time, The plaintiff did not ask to return to work for the company and did not even raise this possibility.
- Levy noted in a conversation from the day 28.3.11 that he does not want the plaintiff to continue working for the company. In his cross-examination, that she was honest and what isDish In Our Eyes, He clarified that at that meeting he did not ask the plaintiff to return to work in light of the fact that he had abandoned his job without explanation and even contacted the company's customers ("The man ran away, Walk away without saying a word, Without taking anything. His car was already ready outside with all the bags. It went away like a ballistic missile and I wanted to know what was going on." (Page 30 For the record, Row 28 onwards).
In fact, Levy's position was that in light of the plaintiff's conduct - abandoning the company's offices without explanation, severing contact with it and contacting its customers - he saw the plaintiff as someone who had resigned. Therefore, he did not want the plaintiff to return to work for the company (page 32 of the transcript, lines 2-6 and see also page 33 of the transcript, lines 1-13).