In light of the aforesaid, the plaintiff is entitled to convalescence pay as claimedAntitrust 10,584 ₪.
- Compensation for Unlawful Dismissal
The plaintiff is demanding compensation in the amount of ILS 50,000. In the statement of claim, he claimed compensation for unlawful dismissal. In his summary, he admitted that this was a problematic component, since he was the one who resigned. The plaintiff claimed that under the circumstances of his resignation, he was entitled to compensation.
The fact that there is no correspondence between the cause of action in the statement of claim and that in the summaries is sufficient to dismiss the claim in this component.
- Offset Claim
The defendant claims that during the period of employment, the plaintiff privately engaged with a client of the defendant, in a real estate transaction in Germany.
The plaintiff referred to this in his affidavit:
- It should also be clarified that I have never recruited clients for a competing business. Indeed, I was recruited for private investment by two investors of the defendant to invest in the property they offered me to enter. This is not a competing business, but an investmentThe A private property of three people in a small property, which so far has not yielded any return and certainly does not have an investmentThe This is any harm to the defendant. In order to explain the court's ear, I also invest in the United States, and even my mother and I invested in the defendant a sum of about ILS 1 million. The investment in questionm The two partners, started before the Corona pandemic, while I shared with Zach and Gil in private
The investment is the same as I used to share with them in my investments in the United States.
- This investment was made long before the defendant harmed his salary. The defendant's claims that I supposedly made The use of its secrets, unfounded and false and claimed in bad faith, in order to evade the payment of my rights.
In his testimony, the plaintiff was referred to the employment agreement in which he was prohibited from working in a competing company in the industry in which the defendant operates. The defendant's definition of occupation is "the acquisition of commercial assets in Germany".