The witness, Mr. Binyamin: Yes, that's right.
(p. 11, lines 6-11)
- At the hearing, the plaintiff knew what the charges against him were:
Adv. Kariv: You claim that you didn't know why you were summoned and you didn't know,
The witness, Mr. Binyamin: That's right,
...
Attorney Katan: So he asks him if at the time of the hearing he knew what the allegations were.
Adv. Kariv: There is no dialogue.
The Honorable Judge Gilzer-Katz: To deny, he asks, "Did you hear what he asked him?" This is a legitimate question.
Adv. Kariv: With kind regards.
The witness, Mr. Binyamin: Yes, I knew and I denied it.
(pp. 11-13)
And:
Adv. Kariv: Look, you claim in the first affidavit that paragraphs 14-15 you didn't know what the allegations against you were, but at the hearing you knew how to deny them, the ones you supposedly didn't know what they were.
The witness, Mr. Binyamin: Yes, I denied it.
Adv. Kariv: If you denied them then you knew what the accusations were and claimed that it was not true, that's fine.
The witness, Mr. Binyamin: Okay.
(p. 12 p.)
Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff knew what the charges against him were at the hearing and even before.
- Grounds for dismissal - The defendant claimed theft, disclosure of trade secrets and competitive activity. The plaintiff admitted to an "error of judgment" regarding old suits that he claimed wanted to donate (the plaintiff's affidavit filed on June 26.2025, Article 27). The plaintiff claimed that he did not divert customers but took suits with consent. The plaintiff claimed that the allegations of theft raised against him at the hearing were "patently false" and that everything that was done was done with the approval and/or knowledge of Eitan, the defendant's manager (the plaintiff's affidavit filed on February 2, 2025, paragraph 16). However, the plaintiff did not lay a factual basis and did not attach evidence to these claims that directly supports the claim that he took suits with consent or received permission to do so or that the suits were donated.
- The defendant continued to employ the plaintiff even after a clarification call between the parties, which shows that the defendant was not in a hurry to fire the plaintiff. In the proceeding before us, the defendant proved that the plaintiff acted unlawfully, as will be detailed below.
The Exhibition
- From the evidence it became clear that the plaintiff went to the exhibition and acted for the counter-defendant.
- As it appears from the evidence, the plaintiff misled the defendant regarding his trip to the exhibition.
- Kidron, one of the managers of the defendant against 2, stated that the plaintiff assisted him in the toy exhibition with the full knowledge of the defendant's manager, Kornex, and that this was done with the consent of their joint work (Kidron's affidavit, paragraph 22). However, no specific evidence was attached to Kidron's affidavit, such as text messages or messages, to support this claim of "full knowledge" or explicit "consent" on the part of the defendant to the plaintiff's activity in the exhibition for another company. Kidron's statement is a factual claim, but it is not supported by evidence.
- Thus, while the defendant was working, the plaintiff acted on behalf of the counter-defendant. Kernors attached to the affidavit (paragraph 17) a WhatsApp correspondence in which the plaintiff wrote to him that an employee of J&K (the counter-defendant) had contracted COVID-19 and that its manager had asked him for his help, and in return the plaintiff claimed that they had been marketed in the defendant's suit booth (Appendix "C" to the affidavit of the defendant[2]'s manager). This notice constitutes direct evidence of Kernors' claim that the plaintiff only informed him retroactively, presenting an excuse, and did not receive prior consent. Thus, Crankours proved that the plaintiff cooperated with J&K in an exhibition whose approval or consent was not criminally challenged.
It has not been proven, and this is contrary to common sense, that the plaintiff would assist the counter-defendant 2 with the full knowledge of the defendant's manager.
As the evidence indicates, the plaintiff took a few vacation days, established them as a fait accompli and traveled to the exhibition, during which he collaborated with J&K in the exhibition. The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant consented to or knew about the plaintiff's activity in the exhibition for a competing company, or at least, for an entity operating in the defendant's field of business.
The Theft
- The defendant attached evidence to support her claims that the plaintiff stole suits and contacted her customers while the defendant was working. According to videos from the security cameras, the plaintiff is seen taking merchandise from the warehouse on a number of occasions, removing the merchandise while checking that the worker is not looking in his direction and putting them in his car. The videos were submitted to the court (Nat/2).
- There is a contradiction in the versions regarding the plaintiff's knowledge of the cameras in the warehouse. The defendant claims that the cameras were installed several days before the plaintiff was caught stealing on August 7, 2022, and that the plaintiff did not know about their installation. According to the defendant, since a problem was discovered in the counting conducted in the warehouse in July 2022, cameras were installed. On the other hand, the plaintiff stated that the cameras installed in the warehouse were visible, and when he took the suits for donation he did not see a problem with it , but at the same time in his summaries he claimed that the defendant violated his privacy by installing the cameras (paragraph 32 of the plaintiff's summaries). Either way, the plaintiff took the products. The plaintiff justified the theft as a "donation," but returned additional products, which testified that he had built a "small warehouse" of stolen products or at least was not proven otherwise by the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff's response in the minutes of the hearing, according to which this was an 'error of judgment, sorry' (paragraph 1 of the employee's arguments in the minutes of the hearing), constitutes, at the very least, an admission of the act of taking the products without explicit permission, and thus strengthens the defendant's claim of a serious breach of fiduciary duty.
Moreover, the plaintiff claimed that his actions were carried out with the permission or knowledge of Crankors. The plaintiff justified the theft as taking products for the purpose of donation , but the defendant's manager testified that old merchandise was being sold:
The witness, Mr. Crankors: Haim, his name is Haim, he lives in Rosh HaAyin, near our warehouse, and he buys merchandise and he sells it. The manager of our office has a child in his association and he sells them the suits of the Israeli team. And this life I also have correspondence, we just didn't attach it was already later. But this life is a buyer of goods and a seller. It's run within the framework of an association, that's right. But,