"In these circumstances of termination of employment by consent, even if the initiative to terminate employment was taken by the employer, the question of unlawful dismissal does not arise, because there were not, as stated, dismissal, but rather the termination of the employee-employer relationship by consent.
Even if we proceed from the premise that we are dealing with 'agreed-upon dismissals', it cannot be said that these dismissals were made unlawfully, because the element of consent authorizes the dismissal process in the existing circumstances."
On the basis of the aforesaid and our conclusion that the plaintiff's dismissal was consensual, the plaintiff's claims regarding unlawful dismissal for failure to hold a hearing are rejected.
- The Claim for Advance Notice -
In the meeting on March 28, 2011, Levy clarified that he did not intend to continue employing the plaintiff and that he was interested in arranging the termination of his employment immediately ("No, I want to finish now, Yoram. I suggest that you go up to Dikla" (page 6 of the transcript, lines 2-8). The plaintiff, for his part, did not claim anything on the matter in real time and did not ask to continue working in practice during the notice period.
The plaintiff left the firm in protest on March 21, 2011, ignoring Levy's inquiries and his pertinent question, and later cut off contact with the company and contacted its customers in a suspicious manner. This conduct indicates that the plaintiff, for his part, waived his right to the notice period. However, in a conversation dated March 28, 2011, the plaintiff demanded that he be paid advance notice fees, and Levy agreed to this in principle:
"Yoram: You can relate to 30 days as it is in the law today. Today.
Dan: Yes, exactly.
In light of this, we can only rule in favor of the plaintiff for advance notice in the sum of ILS 66,000.
- The claim for severance pay differentials is dismissed in light of our conclusion detailed in the sections 15-17, and -20. More than necessary, we note that the sum received by the plaintiff (1,320,000 ₪) Matches his seniority in the company and his last salary (20 Years of work, 66,000 ₪).
The other components that the plaintiff seeks to include in his determining salary do not constitute wages (a telephone constitutes reimbursement of expenses, the appearance of a vehicle is not a component of severance pay - High Court of Justice 4838/03 The Jewish National Fund v. The National Labor Court, IsrSC 59 (5) 241 (2005)) and there is also no basis for the argument that the employer's share that the company contributed to provident funds or due to loss of work capacity should be included. as part of his salary for the purpose of calculating severance pay).
- The claim for accompanying conditions after the severance of the employee-employer relationship is dismissed since the plaintiff did not point to any normative source that entitles him to rights under labor law, For the period after the severance of the employment relationship. In this regard, it should be noted that according to the law, When paid for advance notice (Unlike salary during the notice period, in which the employee actually works), The employee is not entitled to accompanying (Labor Appeal (National) 299/99 Robinson's Harvest-Construction Company (1995) IITax Appeal - Eitam, [Published in Nevo] Pad"P 38 49 (2002)).
- Convalescence Redemption - The plaintiff's claim for differences in this component is based on calculating eligibility until July 2011. As mentioned, The employment relationship between the parties was severed on the day 21.3.11 Therefore, there is no legal basis for this argument of the plaintiff. Therefore, the claim in this component is dismissed.
- Vacation Redemption, Insurances & Related Rights - The above in relation to the inclusion of additional components in the calculation of the severance pay for the plaintiff, It is also good for calculating vacation redemption (Section 10 Law Annual Vacation, Tashi"A - 1951). In addition to, For the reasons cited above in relation to social and ancillary rights in respect of advance notice, There is no room to rule in favor of the plaintiff the differences in the component of vacation redemption.
The same rule applies to the claim for reimbursement for insurance and related rights, The value of using a phone or fuel costs (Sections 99 - 110 To the plaintiff's affidavit). Even to the substance of things, The plaintiff's claims regarding the sums due to him were made in vain, without even the slightest evidence to support them, Including normative anchoring of the alleged rights.