Use of confidential information

107. Bonus claims in its counterclaim (at paragraphs 87-92( that the counter-defendants were prohibited from making use of "Confidential Information", even if this information is not considered a trade secret. However, as determined In section 7(a((1( According to the Commercial Torts Law, a former employee is allowed to make use of the knowledge and experience he acquired in his previous job, in accordance with the provisions thereof (See above in the paragraph 76). The counter-plaintiff did not refer to this section at all in her summaries, neither the main nor in the counterclaim.

Not only that; Bonus admitted in its summaries in the main claim (at paragraph 43( that Mr. Zaruk would have been entitled to compete with it if he had withdrawn from it at the end of the period of the first agreement.  It states that "the 2008 agreement did not include any prohibition of competition clause (but only a confidentiality clause( so that in fact the plaintiff could have terminated the engagement (and not signed the 2009 agreement( and immediately set out to compete with the defendant."

This proves and teaches that the very act of competing in a bonus company, using the experience and knowledge that Mr. Zaruk acquired in his first year, does not violate his duty of good faith and his duty of trust to it.  This basic insight, which Bonus admits, reflects on its arguments in this matter, and sentences them to rejection.

Thus, for example, Mr. Zaruk's mere exposure to the scope of its activity, and the amount of funds it received from the various authorities, is not enough to prohibit him from competing with it.  And when he does so, he does not violate the duty of confidentiality that he assumed when he was in contact with a bonus company.

Not based on employee theft

108. Bonus Company Claims Mr. Zaruk Encouraged Three of Its Employees to Move and Work With him While contracting with Weinberger & Co. In doing so, it is claimed, he caused them to breach the contract with the company.

109. Before we get into the matters on their merits, we must make a procedural comment.  A perusal of the relief clause at the end of the summaries of the Bonus Company in the counterclaim (paragraph 127( shows that the company abandoned the cause of action for breach of contract against Mr. Zarrouk and Mei-Ad, and was left with this cause of action against the Ministry only.  At the same time, at the basis of her claim is the partnership she attributes to the firm and to Mr. Zaruk, and therefore I will also address the claim that it was Mr. Zaruk who solicited the three employees to leave the bonus company in an improper manner.

On the merits, this argument has not been substantiated.

110. Tomer Nissenbaum was employed by a low-wage bonus company, at an hourly rate (Appendix 21 to Mr. Goldian's first affidavit). He denied that Mr. Zaruk had coaxed him to leave the company. He confirmed in his interrogation that he had left his job there about a year before Mr. Zaruk left the bonus company, and turned to work for Ms. Inbal Or, but he was not interested in continuing in this channel.  Therefore, he returned to work for a bonus company for a short period of time (p.  546, S.  34-9).

He further noted that he later left independently due to his desire to work in his field of education as an architectural engineer, and turned to work in an architecture firm that his friends had opened (p.  547, S.  33-1).  He testified that in any case he would have left the Bonus Company (p.  547 Q.30).  In fact, after he left it, he kept in touch with Mr. Zaruk, and then the possibility arose that he would contact the Weinberger Law Firm (p.  521, s.8).  In other words, his departure from Bonus was not the result of Mr. Zaruk's solicitation.  Adv. Shimi Golan also noted in his affidavit (in paragraph 8( Because Mr. Nissenbaum told him around February 2016 thathe was leaving the Bonus Company in favor of the field of architecture.