At the outset, I will note that after reviewing the extensive evidence as well as the parties' testimonies, I found it appropriate to reject the plaintiff's claim in its entirety.
The plaintiff did not bring any evidence to support his claim of any promise to increase his salary, as claimed by him, when the employment agreement stipulates the terms agreed upon by the parties, without change. The plaintiff served as the defendant's business manager, and it was his job to know and promote the defendant's financial affairs. The plaintiff's witnesses strengthened the defendants' version of the agreed working conditions, as well as established the fact that the defendant's board of directors supervised its activities and work plans, as well as the defendant's activity as the company's CEO.
I found that the dismissal proceeding was conducted lawfully, including the summons process and the hearing, when I was convinced that the plaintiff was aware of the grounds for which he had been summoned to the hearing and that in any case he conditioned his continued employment on the payment of his full salary, as he saw it.
The plaintiff, who filed a claim in the amount of approximately ILS 1.5 million, did not base his claims on documents and/or testimonies, while the witnesses on his behalf strengthened the defendants' version, including with regard to his claims to lift the corporate veil against the defendant.
In these circumstances, I have found it appropriate to dismiss his claim in full, all as will be detailed in detail below.
- Salary supplement to ILS 28,000 per month
- In the plaintiff's employment agreement, in Appendix A, it was agreed that the scope of the plaintiff's position would be 50% of the position, in exchange for a total salary of ILS 14,000. [4]
- It was also agreed that "Dotan will be allowed to work part-time at SALICORP for six months from the date of signing the agreement. After six months, the company and Dotan will examine the approval of Dotan's employment elsewhere..." (Dotan, plaintiff's first name - my note, S.S.).
- In accordance with the provisions of the employment agreement, any changes to the agreement will be made in writing. Clause 5.3 of the Employment Agreement states: "Any change or amendment, including a waiver of termination of this Agreement, shall be made in a written document expressly relating to this Agreement, duly signed by both parties."
- In his summaries, the plaintiff admitted, in fact, that the employment agreement was not amended, and so, according to him , ".... Despite the lack of direct and written evidence that he had waived his earnings in a parallel part-time position, the plaintiff was promised wages by the defendants..."[5]
- The email exchange that preceded the signing of the employment agreement, which was prepared by the office of Adv. Afik, the witness on behalf of the plaintiff, testifies that prior to the signing of the employment agreement, negotiations took place between the parties, in which the plaintiff asked to work for another company at the same time, and that, among other things, it was agreed that "...Nimrod is happy to work part-time at SALICORP for the next six months. Afterwards, we will discuss the issue in accordance with developments and with the intention that Dotan will move to a full-time position as soon as Biofeed has the ability to pay for a full-time position."[6]
- The plaintiff agreed in his interrogation that the transition to a full-time position was supposed to take place only when the defendant would be able to pay wages for a full-time position. [7]
"Adv. Armoni: Good and you confirm me, you read the agreement and asked that some amendments be made to it, is that correct?