In light of this, the calculation is accepted on behalf of the plaintiff.
- The defendant will pay the plaintiff a difference in respect of the sums that she should have transferred to a pension fund/fund, in the sum of ILS 52,190.
- Circumstances of the termination of the employee-employer relationship - Eligibility for severance pay
The plaintiff resigned. He claimed that he resigned due to a tangible deterioration in working conditions in a manner that entitles him to severance pay.
The plaintiff, through his counsel, sent a warning letter to the defendant, dated July 12, 2021.
In the letter, he detailed that following the coronavirus crisis, he agreed to a reduction in his base salary and a reduction in the calculation of the bonus, but when the pandemic disappeared, the defendant refused to restore the situation to its previous state. He further claimed that the defendant had stopped handing over to him, which are the basis of his work, and that On May 4, 2021, the company canceled the company's incentive program. The plaintiff claimed that his salary had decreased significantly and that it was a significant deterioration in working conditions.
In the letter, the plaintiff demanded:
- Therefore, the company is required to do the following:
16.1 To restore my client's terms of employment as they existed prior to the reduction of wages on April 26, 2020, and prior to the cancellation of the incentive program, as occurred on May 4, 2021.
16.2 To resume the transfer of leads to my client immediately.
16.3 To complete social contributions retroactively in relation to my client's full salary, that is, also for the variable component, which is part of my client's salary for all intents and purposes.
He also clarified that if his demands were not met, he would be forced to announce his resignation by law.
- On July 26, 2021, the plaintiff, through his attorney, sent a letter of resignation in which he announced that he would give 60 days' advance notice as required by the employment agreement.
- During this period, the plaintiff was on sick days.
The defendant argued against the sickness certificates attached by the plaintiff and even invited a private investigator who prepared a report according to which the plaintiff was seen walking in the street, picking up his son, and more.