The defendant claimed that the plaintiff resigned because he asked to change direction and enrolled in a coaching course. This argument does not negate the plaintiff's claim of deterioration in working conditions or the circumstances due to which he cannot continue to work for the defendant - Circumstances proved as detailed above.
The defendant claimed that the plaintiff dealt with other issues while he was working. The defendant was aiming to publish a children's book "Con the Dragon". We did not see fit to expand on this topic and note two, one - As the evidence indicates, the defendant's managers knew about this in real time. The second - The defendant did not fire the plaintiff as a result of his "actions" and therefore cannot claim anything about it after the plaintiff resigned.
The defendant further claimed that the plaintiff was the one who failed to recruit investors. In this matter as well, we did not find it appropriate to set rivets, since the defendant was entitled to dismiss the plaintiff if, as it claimed, he did not succeed in recruiting investors, but chose not to do so. Furthermore, from the document "Sales Team Meeting" dated December 14, 2020 attached by the defendant (Appendix 13), it emerged that the plaintiff and another employee broke their personal record in customer recruitment and that records were broken in other areas. Therefore, the defendant's argument in this matter is puzzling.
It was also claimed that Kocher's services were hired to assist the plaintiff. In this matter as well, we did not find it appropriate to set rivets, since this does not testify to anything about the circumstances of the plaintiff's departure. As evidence, the defendant did not dismiss the plaintiff due to a decline in his performance, as it claimed.
- In light of the above, the plaintiff proved that in the circumstances of the resignation he was entitled to severance pay.
The plaintiff claims that the severance pay should be calculated according to two different periods, the first - According to the salary before the reduction due to the coronavirus, and the second - According to wages from April 2020 after the reduction due to the COVID-19 crisis. The plaintiff refers in this matter to the judgment Labor Appeal (National) 42463-09-11 Gad Golan v. Shiran Carpentry in a Tax Appeal (March 18, 2013). The defendant did not dispute the method of calculating severance pay and did not present a countercalculation.
- In light of the aforesaid, the defendant must pay the plaintiff severance pay in the sum of ILS 228,122.
- Salary July 2021
The defendant did not pay the plaintiff wages for the month of July 2021, claiming that the plaintiff had abandoned his job and sent fictitious and false sick certificates. As stated above, the sickness certificates submitted to the file were not contradicted.