- He thought at the time and many years ago of opening a bakery, but the venture was quickly abandoned by him, and the ownership of the bakery passed to Nizar;
- He is not the owner of the bakery and never served as the plaintiff's employer;
- The sole employer and the actual owner of the bakery is Nizar, who hired the plaintiff, agreed with him on the terms of his salary and supervised his work on an ongoing basis.
III. The Court's Decision
C.1. Introduction to the Tribunal's Decision
- We will preface by noting that after hearing all the testimonies; we have reviewed all the evidence and documents submitted to the case (including the documents of the National Insurance Institute, the tax authorities and Bank Hapoalim); and after we have considered all the arguments of the parties, we determine that the lawsuit is lawful Be accepted by the vast majority. Among other things, we found that the plaintiff proved a significant part of the factual basis underlying his claim, And it has been proven Because the defendant was The owner of the bakery, for all intents and purposes. On the other hand, the defendant did not contradict most of the plaintiff's claims, nor did he contradict the evidentiary picture that emerges from the totality of the evidence.
- Before we elaborate on the reasons that led us to our conclusion, let us make a few preliminary remarks:
First note - the plaintiff's version and the reliability of his testimony - the plaintiff's version with regard to his actual work in the bakery, the period of his work, the manner in which the work was performed and the conditions of his employment as a whole, was reliable and continuous, and it was not contradicted at all during his testimony. All of this, except for two specific points: first, the scope of the work, and as a result of this - the claim regarding overtime pay and the claim regarding minimum wage differences; second, the circumstances of his termination of employment and the claim regarding severance pay;