The circumstances of the plaintiff's termination of employment
- According to the plaintiff, He was fired on the day 21.3.11 from his job when Levy explicitly informed him to leave the company's offices (Sections 24-26 To the plaintiff's affidavit). According to him,, He was fired for foreign motives. "The Recruitment Event" of his daughter (As described in the section 6A' Above).
According to the plaintiff, the "professional" pretext - the argument of March 21, 2011, between him and Levy regarding the transaction he sought to execute - constituted a cover for the family's vengeful motive that was the basis for his dismissal (paragraphs 22 and 76 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
- According to the defendants, It was the plaintiff who abandoned his job and cut off all contact with them, and even contacted the company's customers close to the day 21.3.11, While trying to establish a competing business. This, After most of his work he was a driver for the company "Owner's Custom", Behavior that worsened after two reached his hands"The organizational consultant who recommended delimiting the plaintiff's areas of activity in accordance with the definition of his position and appointing another as CEO"To the Company (3-7 and- 11 Levy's affidavit).
- According to the evidence presented, The plaintiff's version regarding his dismissal was contradicted. First, Regarding the motives behind his dismissal, The plaintiff did not point to any harm to his working conditions after the enlistment event. It can be seen that after the date of his daughter's enlistment, January salary 2011 that was paid to him on the day 6.2.11, He received a raise of 10% In his salary (who was tall to begin with). According to the plaintiff's testimony, The salary increase indicates that Levy did not plan to fire him at that stage (I don't think he wanted to make the move as early as January, otherwise he would have done it then.." (Page 15 For the record, Lines 1-5).
Second, the plaintiff's claim that his dismissal was a pre-planned move is inconsistent with the fact that the plaintiff was intended to take Levy's place after his passing, at a good old age, and Levy even informed the managers of Steel, the foreign company with which the company has commercial relations. This fact also strengthens our conclusion that Levy did not plan to fire the plaintiff and that he had no reason to fire him (paragraphs 1c, 1 f-1-h of Mr. Levy's affidavit).