Accordingly, failure to comply with the obligations that are the subject of the contracting agreement constitutes a breach of contract that grants regular contractual remedies, as opposed to a breach of discipline in an employment contract that allows for the imposition of personal sanctions such as suspension.
- In the present case, there is no dispute that the suspension remedy does not exist within the framework of the agreement, and moreover, it does not exist within the framework of ordinary contract law. However, according to the defendant, as appears from the testimony of Adv. Somer, the practice between the parties enabled it to take this sanction, and in addition, it argues that since, in accordance with the agreement, it is entitled to order the cancellation of the agreement, since the suspension constitutes a less draconian remedy, it is entitled to take the suspension as a relief between the seas. I do not accept these arguments of the defendant.
Thus, first of all, with regard to the defendant's claim that it is possible to learn from the past practice in which it suspended Zahavi from his position, as a source of this authority, the "past" that the defendant points to is the case concerning Channel 14. In that case, Zahavi agreed with the defendant's modus operandi and its demands. This agreement led to two - first, that he agreed to apologize, and secondly, that he returned to work within a short time. Support for this can be found in Zahavi's testimony in lines 21-30 on page 34:
"Adv. Abramov: Before that incident you were also suspended, right, this is not a suspension, it was not your first suspension.
The witness, Mr. Zehavi: If you say I am sure you are right.
Adv. Abramov: And did you do anything with the previous suspensions, did you cooperate with the radio?
The witness, Mr. Zehavi: Tell me what suspensions and I'll say.
Adv. Abramov: I will go to the nearest suspension, a suspension following the affair of the residents of Ulpan 14.