The witness, Mrs. Alsheikh: That's a great question and I have an answer to it OK? The company and it is also written in the rest of my affidavit in the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022 The company entered a huge crisis The active cyber market in the State of Israel experienced a ... And that's why, in August 2022, a few months after Lisa graduated, we unfortunately had to say goodbye to 100 employees. By the way, the company at all didn't need this bonus, the employees didn't have to get in such a situation with such a cash flow with the fact that they know that they cut with a guillotine and it is impossible to provide products at all, the company in general should not have paid a bonus. The CEO at the time went and took a loan in order to pay and it was possible, but I tell you what it was, I tell you what it was to understand for a moment the background of what happened at that time, what happened at that time, what was this bonus that didn't have to be paid at all, like in '21 they didn't pay a bonus, in '22 the company wouldn't have needed if I was a management member I wouldn't have paid a bonus OK? It was the CEO's decision to go and take another loan on top of the loan the company had taken just to give the employees a bonus. He took a loan of about 20 million dollars in order to pay the employees a bonus, to tell them that you are dear to me, I need you because I am going to sell the company, you can read in the newspapers, the company tried to sell and it was exactly during this period, it was exactly in April, May, June, and that's why he came up and talked to the employees and told them, "You're dear to me, I need you, I'm trying to sell the company."
- Fourth, the defendant's version was not contradicted, because it was decided that the bonus would be paid only to those who were still employees of the company. Michal testified as follows (Prov. 10, paras. 5-10):
The company was in a huge crisis, many employees gave notices and the decision of the company's management at the time no longer existed, the same management was for those who work in the company and are on the workforce to receive it, those who don't. Something that is customary not only in N S O but also in other places to go towards you are a company employee you will get you are not a company employee you will not get very simple.
- In her testimony, the plaintiff tried to doubt the very existence of the decision of the board of directors, or other parties, and argued as follows (prov. 7, paras. 34-39):
True, there's an asterisk there that says it depends on the decision of the board of directors, when I was with the registrar, I said if it's the decision of the board of directors, it's my right to see the decision of the board of directors, at what stage they decided that Liza X, this person and that person, she'll only get 40, someone will get 30, because that's what will open up where the list and the decision of all shareholders regarding the distribution of a bonus is all I'm asking.
- In our opinion, the defendant is right in its summaries that this is an extension of the façade (Prov. 22, para. 5). In the statement of claim and in the affidavit, the plaintiff did not deny the claim that a decision was made by the relevant parties in the defendant not to pay the bonus to the employees who left. Moreover, the plaintiff even claimed in the affidavit that on May 30, 2022, she received a call informing her of such a decision. The plaintiff did not claim in the affidavit that she doubted the correctness of the information given to her in the conversation. Moreover, the plaintiff explicitly relates to the company's decision as a decision made in bad faith, i.e., it does not deny the decision itself, but rather argues on its merits (the plaintiff's affidavit in paragraph 8).
- One way or another, given that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and to the extent that the plaintiff sought to undermine the claim that a decision had been made by the relevant parties regarding the denial of a bonus to non-employees, she should have requested appropriate documents as part of the document discovery proceedings. The plaintiff did not do so, and in fact did not explicitly claim the matter until the stage of testimony and summaries. This is therefore an expansion of a prohibited front, since it could have been assumed until the stage of the evidentiary discussion that there was no dispute regarding this issue.
- Fifth, the argument was not contradicted that against the background of the fact that the purpose of the bonus is "to retain the employee in the company and to incentivize him to continue to work for its success", it was decided to grant a bonus only to someone who is still an employee of the company, and that this is an acceptable condition (paragraph 18 of Michal's affidavit and see Prov. 10, paras. 8-10 and p. 16).
- Therefore, we are unable to accept the plaintiff's argument that this decision was made in bad faith, or out of a desire to punish her for her resignation (paragraphs 7-8 of the plaintiff's affidavit). This is a legitimate consideration that is consistent with the purpose of the bonus, as has also been ruled in similar cases. Thus, for example, in the matter of a collective dispute (Tel Aviv) 24182-04-14 The New Histadrut HaWorkers' Union, the Maof Histadrut, Banks and Insurance Companies Employees Division v. The International Bank in Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (November 23, 2014), Judge Gilzer Katz (as described at the time) ruled regarding the purpose of this type of bonus, that even though it is an assessment of the workers' performance in the past year, it is still "Its true essence is to provide an incentive to employees, looking to the future. Therefore, the question of whether the bonus is paid for a previous year is of no importance." This is also appropriate for our case.
- In summary, the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof to show that the conditions that entitle her to receive a bonus were met. Even if it is a bonus that, according to the plaintiff, is due to past achievements, the employer has the right to determine that the bonus will be paid in parts, and also to determine that someone who does not work for the company will not receive the bonus, in whole or in part. This decision is within the framework of the employer's prerogative as part of the management of his business, and there is no justification for intervening in it.
Conclusion
- The claim is dismissed in its entirety.
- The plaintiff will bear the defendant's expenses and legal fees in the amount of ILS 7,500 to be paid within 30 days.
The right to appeal by law.