In his interrogation, Mr. Nissenbaum explicitly denied the claim of the Bonus Company that Mr. Zaruk had coaxed him to leave the company (p. 547, Q. 33-26; 548, S. 3-2).
I trust this version of Mr. Nissenbaum, which fits well with a persistent desire to leave the Bonus Company, for various reasons, unrelated to Mr. Zaruk, and which has been implemented in practice.
- Asael Kalfa, who was summoned to testify on behalf of a bonus company, did not confirm in his interrogation that he had left the company because Mr. Zaruk had coaxed him to do so. Mr. Kalfa has the education of an architectural engineer, and he earned a global monthly salary that is not high (Appendix 21 to Mr. Goldian's first affidavit). He informed Mr. Goldian of his decision to leave the company about a year after Mr. Zarrouk left it, and in his notice of departure (dated November 9, 2016( he stated that he wished to realize his ability to "create and plan" and "advance in other areas" (see: Exhibit N/8). During his interrogation, he confirmed that he wanted to develop in the fields of architecture and real estate brokerage (p. 557, Q. 34-31).
Mr. Kalfa testified that he had several conversations with Mr. Zaruk and Mr. Nissenbaum, and that the first contact with him was when he was still working for a bonus company, but he claimed that he would have left anyway, since he had told Mr. Goldian that he wanted to deal with the affairs of architectural and brokerage engineers (p. 558, Q. 17-18, Q.22 onwards). He further noted that "throughout the past two years after I left Bonus, I did many, many things that are both related to brokerage and engineering consulting, I also submitted plans to the municipality, I also gave opinions, as if I had done everything I could to exhaust the field to see that I was really ready to continue" (p. 558, s. 30). This activity was carried out in parallel with his work with the Weinberger Law Office.
I found it necessary to trust this version, which reflects an existing desire to leave society, in light of an ongoing sense of self-fulfillment. And it cannot be said that it was Mr. Zaruk who coaxed him and motivated him to leave his job, so that without this effort, he would have been left to continue working for a bonus company.
- Koresh confirmed in his interrogation that he did not leave Bonus Company due to Mr. Zaruk's solicitation, but was fired by Mr. Goldian. He further testified that it was only after he left the Bonus Company that Mr. Nissenbaum contacted him and interested him in the work, and it was not Mr. Zaruk. He testified that Mr. Goldian behaved violently towards him when he tried to say hello to all the employees he knew before he left (p. 584).
It should be noted that Mr. Koreish's income was also global, and low, and his job was to photograph building files in the archives of the local authorities. He stopped working for the company around 10 July 2016, i.e., more than eight months after Mr. Zaruk finished his employment there (Appendix 21 to Mr. Goldian's first affidavit, as well as exhibit P/9).
- For its part, Bonus claims that the existence of a "miraculous" coincidence that led to these employees leaving it and deciding to work with Mr. Zaruk should not be accepted. Still, it was established that these three employees were unhappy with their work at a bonus company. Because they earned a low salary. Because they were motivated to leave, and one of them was even fired. These circumstances show that theseemployees would have left the bonus company anyway. Therefore, no legal causal connection was established between their departure and Mr. Zaruk's alleged improper action.
114. The counter-plaintiff's arguments in this matter should be dismissed.
Theft of customers
- When we come to examine the claim of customer theft, we must understand the complex relationship between a service provider and its customer. A relationship of trust and appreciation can develop between the two. And when the person who provided services to the customer leaves his place of work, the customer can ask to follow in his footsteps. In such a state of affairs, improper solicitation is not on the agenda.
In this regard, the example given by the Honorable President Amit in his article (Yitzhak Amit, "On Freedom of Occupation and Secrecy" Hapraklit 41, 437 (hereinafter: Amit( is appropriate: "Let us take an example that is close to our hearts: a salaried lawyer who retires from the firm, moves to another firm, or establishes an independent firm: it would be unfair on his part if he tried to attract clients of the firm in which he worked. However, what is the law if a client with whom he established a relationship of trust and professional closeness during the period of his employment with the original employer, wishes to continue receiving his services at his new workplace? Will we also prohibit the lawyer from coming into contact with that client?"The negative answer is obvious. Customers are not the property of the workplace, or of its owners. They also have desires, and these desires must be taken into account.