Moreover, the exchange of 21 March 2011 , which we will discuss at length below, does not indicate a pre-planned move to dismiss the plaintiff.
- There is no dispute between the parties that the employment relationship between them was severed on the day 21.3.11. There is also no substantive dispute regarding the exchange between the parties on that day.
During the month of March 2011, the plaintiff sought to execute some transaction, and Levy vehemently objected to it. Levy claimed that the plaintiff had approached him five times on the subject. The plaintiff confirmed this claim in principle, but according to him, he approached Levy on the subject only "two or three times." His testimony indicates that he did indeed pressure Levy (p. 13 of the transcript, lines 3-30). In this context, we note that the plaintiff's testimony on the matter was inflammatory and his attitude toward Levy was dismissive (page 14 of the transcript, lines 1-2):
"A normal person would not reject the deal. Apparently he was just abnormal. I think a reasonable person would have taken this deal with both hands, and Dan Levy didn't give a reason."
Levy, whosuspected the plaintiff of acting with extraneous motives and not for the benefit of the company, explicitly asked the plaintiff whether his suspicion was well-founded. In response, the plaintiff left the room demonstratively, without saying a word (paragraphs 23-24 of the plaintiff's affidavit, paragraphs 6-7 of Levy's affidavit).
The plaintiff's testimony regarding leaving the room was evasive and inconsistent, but in the end the plaintiff admitted that he had left the room as claimed by the defendants (page 12 of the transcript, lines22-24).
Levy, For his part, He responded and called out to the plaintiff: "If you dare to leave me in the middle of our conversation then you are allowed to leave the place" Or as the plaintiff says - "If you leave the room like this you can leave at all".
- In his affidavit, the plaintiff claimed that afterwards, At the same time, Levi entered his room and shouted "So quit your job and get out of here" (Section 25 To the plaintiff's affidavit). This matter was vehemently denied by both Levi (Section 6 To his affidavit) and by the congregation on his behalf, Back' Tatiana Levitsky, The company's employee who worked near the parties' offices on the relevant dates (Section 4 Tatiana's affidavit, Her testimony on the page 43 For the protocol line 26 Up to page 44, Row 10). At the end of the day, it appears that the plaintiff also retracted this argument, since this matter was completely omitted from his summaries.
In our opinion, the discrepancy between the plaintiff's summaries and his affidavit on a central, substantial and dramatic factual issue, as he claims, is not a trivial matter, and it also leads us to the conclusion that the plaintiff's version regarding the termination of his employment should be rejected.