Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv) 24193-02-24 Emanuel Eliyahu Cohen – Manosa Marketing Ltd.

Judgment

We have before us a claim for payment of various damages for alleged deficiencies during the period of the plaintiff's employment, who was employed as a warehouseman, and for the circumstances of his dismissal.

Summary of the facts and the legal process

1. The defendant is a company that markets various products for cutting, engraving, milling, etc., mainly products manufactured by Dimmer Ltd. (hereinafter: the "Dimmer Company").  Dimmer previously held 91% of the defendant's shares, and the rest of the shares were owned by Mr. Herzl Bazara, who also served as the defendant's CEO.
2. The defendant was operating during the relevant period from a factory store at 8 Lahav Street in Holon.
3. The plaintiff worked for the defendant as a warehouse worker from September 1,2010 until his dismissal on August 3,2021. During this period, the plaintiff was on unpaid leave from March 18,2020 until April 17,2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. An employment agreement was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant at the beginning of his employment (Appendix 1 to his affidavit).
5. During the months of April to July 2021, the plaintiff spent extended periods of illness and presented sick certificates (Appendix 5 to his affidavit) for the following dates: April 28,2021 to May 4,2021; May 30,2021 to June 4,2021; June 5,2021 to June 21,2021; June 22,2021 to June 30,2021; July 1,2021 to July 15,2021.
6. At the same time, there was a change in ownership of the shares in Dimer, following which Mr. Bazzara opened a new business, in areas that compete with the defendant. In order to complete the picture, Dimmer completed the purchase of all of the defendant's shares, including the shares held by Mr. Bazzara, in February 2023.
7. In June 2021, the defendant was forced to vacate the premises in which it was located and move to a nearby location, to 15 Lahav Street in Holon. The new business that Mr. Bazzera opened was located in the premises vacated by the defendant.  There is no dispute that the plaintiff came several times to visit Mr. Bazara in the new competing business he opened.
8. On July 18,2021, the plaintiff was served with a summons to a hearing (Appendix 7 to his affidavit), in which it was stated that:

"At the hearing, all your involvement and actions that were carried out by you and your conduct against the best interests of the company will be discussed, and together with the person who was the company's previous manager who rented the company's previous structure, without the company's knowledge, and maintains a competing business.