and. Levy testified on behalf of the defendants, Mr. Emmanuel Becker, who previously served as the company's bookkeeper, Mr. Danny Neumann, VP"To the company's human resources and Gev's son-in-law' Hayuta Levy, as well as the company's employees: Back' Tanya Levitsky, Back' Orit Zarahia, Mr. Leonid Zagalsky, Danny Kaganovsky and Gav' Rachel Moshe.
Another affidavit was submitted on behalf of Ms. Maggie Kovabanov, but since the witness did not appear for questioning about her affidavit, we are not required to do so.
It is also worth noting that an affidavit on behalf of one of the company's clients, Mr. Asher Cohen, was attached to Levy's affidavit as an appendix (Appendix 13 to Levy's affidavit). Since Mr. Cohen did not appear for the evidentiary hearings, what is stated in his affidavit should not be required, especially since the content of the affidavit is not necessary for the purpose of the decision before us.
VII. After the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the company petitioned for split remedies in all matters relating to the sale of the vehicle by the plaintiff. It should be clarified that in the lawsuit before us, the company petitioned to return the vehicle to its hands and to pay proper usage fees for it, However, since the vehicle has already been sold by the plaintiff, The lawsuit filed is no longer relevant. The company's request has been accepted (R' Decision from 24.10.13).
From here we will move on to discussing the issues in dispute.
Rivalry - The Lawsuit Against Levy
- The plaintiff filed his claim against the company as well as against Mr. Levy personally. The plaintiff did not clarify why he included Levy as a defendant in the case, since he also said, It was the company alone that employed him, As he testified (Highlight Added - IV.and.; Page 8 For the record, Lines 11-19):
"Q. Referring to section 6 To your affidavit of who was your employer?
- Dan Levy.
- So why do you write with my dismissal from the defendant in the section 6?
The plaintiff does not respond.
- Maybe it's because it's in the public.
- You have reported to the authorities that you are employed by Dan Levy?
- The Company, The CEO"For the company, it was Dan Levy.
- I repeat my question?
- I didn't report anything to the authorities. What to report?"
It should be noted that his testimony on this matter, as well as his testimony in general, would have been evasive. In any event, even according to the plaintiff's testimony, there was no employee-employer relationship between him and Levy, and since he does not have any satisfactory explanation for Levy's inclusion as a defendant in the case, the lawsuit against Levy should be dismissed.
- As mentioned, In the lawsuit before us, three main companies: The circumstances of the plaintiff's termination of employment, The Plaintiff's Entitlement to the Defendant's Shares and its Subsidiary (Advance Forklifts 2000 P"From) and the amount of his monthly salary. Before we deal with the issue of the plaintiff's termination of employment, we find that we should discuss the plaintiff's two additional arguments, These issues should clarify the factual context and contribute to an understanding of the relationship between the parties, As a background to the discussion of the issue of the circumstances of the plaintiff's termination of employment in the company.
The plaintiff's salary and his entitlement to shares
- In the last years preceding the termination of the plaintiff's employment, Levy transferred him significant sums of money every month. In the last year of his work, The position that the plaintiff received from Levi was in the amount of 30,000 ₪. These sums were transferred from Levy's personal account. According to the plaintiff, This sum should be considered an integral part of his salary. This is because it is a fixed sum paid to him by Levy, At the time of receipt of the salary, Every month.
- The plaintiff tried to claim that as part of the"Method of work" Levi's, He used to pay workers various amounts in cash, In addition to those specified in the pay slips. The only example cited in this context is that of an employee named Dori Meir, When this was against the background of a legal dispute and a divorce proceeding that the employee was conducting at the time with his spouse (Sections 6-7 Kahane's affidavit). It should be noted that not even the first evidence was brought to support the plaintiff's claim in the matter, and Mr. Kahane testified that he did not have the exact details regarding the salary of that employee, From which bank account were the sums transferred for which he claimed or when he was paid (Page 6 For the record, Lines 1-29). Also, Mr. Kahane's testimony in its entirety would have evaded (R' His testimony regarding the payment of double vacation redemption to the plaintiff - On the page 4 For the record, ShuroA20-32 And on the page 5 For the record). Against this background and in light of Levy's testimony, who denied the allegations, We have not been persuaded by the argument that as a matter of opinion, The company or Levy used to pay employees in the company a salary that exceeded that specified on the pay slip.
- As part of his affidavit, the plaintiff raised a new claim, That was not claimed in the statement of claim, According to which the sum he received in cash from Levi constituted consideration for a return that the plaintiff obtained as part of the company's engagement with the company "Nissan" In a concession agreement 2000.
- Levy testified that he transferred the sum in question to the plaintiff as monthly support, Out of good will and in light of their family ties, After the plaintiff's wife complained to his wife (Grandmother) that the plaintiff's income is not sufficient for their ongoing existence and that the plaintiff requires her to limit her current expenses (Section 22 To the defendant's affidavit).
- As explained below, We found that the sum in question was family support and that it was not part of the plaintiff's salary.
- There is no dispute that the monthly grant was transferred to the plaintiff from Levy's personal account (Appendix E' To the statement of claim) And not from the company's account, that transferred the plaintiff's salary as an employer. According to the plaintiff, The sums were paid from Levy's account for two reasons: The first, In order to hide this matter from her life, Levi's wife, And the second - In order not to create "The Rebellion" Among the rest of the company's managers (Page 17 For the record, ShuroA30-32). The plaintiff's own testimony indicates that he does not know from which account the checks were drawn- It may be from Levy's personal account and possibly from the joint account of Levi and his wife ("I have no idea, I think it was from his private account..", Page 17 For the record, ShuroT 16-17). Despite this, the plaintiff claimed that he "I don't think she's (Meaning Hayuta - IV.and.) Was aware" (Page 17 For the record, Row 30). This version is completely unreasonable in our view.
- Despite the fact that the plaintiff received a raise of 10% in January 2011, The amount transferred to him from Levy's account every month remained unchanged and there is no indication that the plaintiff demanded that the increase apply to this amount as well. On this issue as well, The plaintiff's testimony was irrelevant and he avoided giving a direct answer on the matter (Page 19 For the record, ShuroT 16-20).
- The conclusion that the monthly sums from Levy constituted only family support is strengthened in light of the plaintiff's attempt to link the payment of the grant to"Nissan Deal", A claim that was first made in the plaintiff's affidavit and we have not found a basis for it in the evidence.
The plaintiff claimed that in light of his achievements in entering into a deal with Nissan - a franchise agreement signed by Kedma Forklifts 2000 in a tax appeal with Nissan in 2000, Levy undertook to him that he would grant him 30% of the shares of Kedma 2000 Ltd. As stated, this argument was made in vain without even the slightest evidence being brought to support it, and it is only for this reason that it should be rejected. Second, Kedma Forklifts 2000 in the tax appeal was not joined as a party to the proceeding before us at all, and in the circumstances of the case, even for this reason, the plaintiff's arguments in the matter should be rejected.
- In the context of the nature of the monthly payment from the, The fact that the plaintiff expanded the scope of the dispute and tried to link the monthly remuneration to the sum of 30,000 Q"that was transferred to him every month and the transaction in question, But weakens his arguments on the matter.
- The plaintiff claimed that Levy promised him that after he retired from the management of the company,, He will pass it on to the plaintiff 50% From the Company's Shares, In light of his contribution to society and evidence, He presented him with his will (Sections 113-116 To the plaintiff's affidavit, Appendix 15' To the plaintiff's affidavit, Page 20 For the record, Lines 15-17). Levy confirmed that he did indeed believe that the plaintiff was suitable to serve as the company's manager after his departure, and that he even presented the plaintiff with a will in which he announced his intention to bequeath to the plaintiff's wife or to the plaintiff himself 50% of the company's shares and that it is his wish that the plaintiff serve as the company's manager in his place. However, In light of the plaintiff's conduct and resignation, Levy revoked that will. It is appropriate to submit in this context that Levy sought to bequeath to the plaintiff the company and the right to manage it after his death and not while he was still alive (Section 37 Levy's affidavit; Page 29 For the record, Lines 31-32). In this context, we will further mention that according to the law, A will can be changed or revoked by the testator at any time (Section 36 Law Inheritance, 560"The - 1965) and does not grant the beneficiary according to a will any right before the testator passes away.
In light of all of the above, the plaintiff did not prove that he was entitled to the defendant's shares as he claimed.
- The very filing of the lawsuit before us, In this framework, the plaintiff petitioned the"Enforcement" The will and to receive a share of control from the company or from forklifts 2000 P"From, Strengthens the defendants' claim that the plaintiff asked to accept the position of manager as well as control of the company, Treat the company as an owner, He sought to control areas of responsibility that were not his own and to take over Levy's powers in practice, While the latter is still alive and actively managing the company (Section 3 Levy's affidavit).
- To summarize the above, It was not proven that the sums that Levy transferred every month from his personal account constituted a salary, and in light of the logic of the matter and against the background of the relations between the parties, It is reasonable to assume that this is nothing more than family support.
As to the transfer of the company's shares to the plaintiff, A promise in this regard or any other undertaking, Not proven.