We regret that you unexpectedly chose to leave your job at our company on March 20, 2011.
Therefore, the employee-employer relationship ended on the date of your departure, with all that this entails.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid and beyond the letter of the law, the compensation and benefits accumulated in your favor will be transferred to you, subject to your signature on the required documents.
You are requested to return your vehicle (including the fuel tank) and your laptop to our office, by Wednesday, April 6, 2011.
At the same time, we ask you to arrange the payment of the balance of your debts to the company in the total amount of ILS 29,894 for your private vehicle insurance."
- per day 6.4.11 The plaintiff replied to the letter, by B"20 (Appendix G' To the plaintiff's affidavit), and clarified that he was fired from his job without a lawful hearing. According to the plaintiff, He was fired from his job due to a family dispute that arose over his daughter's enlistment, Adi, In which Dov was involved' Hayuta Levy, Her daughter Irit and her granddaughter, Limor (The Plaintiff's Wife). The company denied these claims in a reply letter sent to the plaintiff on the same day 20.4.14 (Appendix H' Levy's affidavit).
- The plaintiff received severance pay from the company in the sum of 1,320,000 ₪ (R' Post B"The plaintiff in the preliminary hearing of the 13.2.12).
- The following is a summary of the plaintiff's arguments:
- The plaintiff was fired from his job in disgrace and without a lawful hearing due to a family dispute that broke out between Levy's wife, Back' Hayuta Levy and his wife. According to the plaintiff, per day 12.1.11 His daughter Adi Latza enlisted"To and to the enlistment ceremony, Ms. was invited' Her vitality and her daughter Irit, And this despite the demand of Hayuta Irit not to be summoned (Against the background of a break in the relationship between the two). The plaintiff's claim is that since Irit came to the event, Hayuta decided to harm him and his wife, and as a result, sought to bring about the termination of the plaintiff's employment in the company (Below: The Recruitment Event).
- Levy fired the plaintiff from his work on the site, and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to advance notice and compensation for not holding a hearing.
III. The plaintiff's fixed salary was 142,368 On this basis, all of his rights must be calculated upon the completion of the work. This amount embodies the plaintiff's salary as detailed in the pay slip (66,000 ₪) Together with an additional amount of 30,000 ILS that Levi has given him in recent years for his work on a regular basis, Every month, and was an integral part of the remuneration for his work in the company.
- Levy undertook to grant the plaintiff 30% Notebook Progress Forklifts 2000 P"From, In view of the plaintiff's involvement in the defendant's profits and the company's engagement as a franchisee with the "Nissan" He also undertook to transfer it to him 50% From the Company's Shares.
The. The plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of expenses, Telephone vehicle and insurance for the notice period and the vacation period accrued to its credit.
- The following is a summary of the defendants' arguments:
- There is no rivalry between the plaintiff and Levy since the company and it alone, employed the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff resigned from his job when he left the company's offices on the day 21.3.11 and cut off contact with her.
III. A few days after the end of his employment, the plaintiff contacted the company's customers, and as a result, the email box was disconnected"To his. In practice, After the end of his employment with the company, The plaintiff established a business that competes with it.
- The plaintiff was paid the balance of the vacation to which he was entitled and was even transferred to him a sum twice as much as he was entitled to.
The. Levy treated the plaintiff and his family generously in light of the family closeness, Give them valuable gifts, assisted in the purchase of an apartment and even provided the plaintiff and his family with financial support every month in the sum of 20,000 Q"8 and later on in the sum of 30,000 ₪. The sums were withdrawn from his personal account and there is no basis for the claim that they are part of the plaintiff's salary.
- Proceedings
- The plaintiff's claim was consolidated with the company's claim against him regarding the use of a vehicle belonging to the company (According to her,), Counterclaim (Speedy Hearing by Judge 9637-10-11; [Published in Nevo] R' Decision 22' Judge Spivak from 12.2.12).
As part of the same proceeding, the company requested to seize the vehicle and its request was granted. However, since the foreclosure order was not served on the plaintiff as required and in light of an application filed by the plaintiff, the foreclosure expired (the decision of the Honorable Registrar and Lech of December 10, 2012). An appeal filed against this decision was dismissed because the hearing became redundant, after the vehicle was sold shortly after the cancellation of the foreclosure order (Appeal against Registrar's Decision 25597-12-12, [published in Nevo] judgment of February 26, 2013).
- Another proceeding was conducted between the parties, In this framework, the company sued the plaintiff and petitioned for the refund of vacation redemption that had been overpaid to him, In total 138,678 ₪. per day 6.3.14 A judgment was given in which the claim was accepted in full, When the plaintiff admitted to receiving the sums in excess (Labor Dispute 36050-10-12).
III. To complete the picture, we note that there is an additional proceeding between Levy and the plaintiff and his wife, On the subject of a request to execute a deed, At the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court.
- After the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings in the case, the plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of documents, In the framework of it, he petitioned for the discovery of the defendant's will, The request was accepted in part and accordingly, The defendant presented a will that he had drawn up on the relevant dates for the claim and declared that he did not have another will from that period. A request for permission to appeal this decision was rejected by the National Court (Request for Leave to Appeal (National) 2615-12-12; [Published in Nevo] Decision 22' Judge Gliksman - Kochavi, From the day 13.1.13).
The. Except for the plaintiff's testimony, Mr. Zeev Kahane, who served as the company's accountant in the past, testified on his behalf. The plaintiff filed an additional affidavit, On behalf of Mr. Yuval Schuchman, However, since the witness did not appear for questioning about his affidavit, We don't need it.