Among other things, information about renting the building, transferring information of the company's customers to it.
Transferring customer orders to him, providing information about the company's ongoing activities"
- Following the summons to the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel contacted the defendant, asked to postpone the date of the hearing, and also requested that the documents on which the defendant relies in her arguments be forwarded to him (Appendix 8 to the plaintiff's affidavit). The defendant postponed the date, did not submit documents (Appendix 9 to the plaintiff's affidavit), and in a letter of reply from her attorney it was written:
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916"3. With regard to your client's request regarding the evidence, I will note that the invitation to the hearing date was based on a series of events that occurred in my client in recent times and your client's alleged involvement in them, which raised a real suspicion regarding your client's conduct and alleged connections in connection with these events, including:
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- His alleged connections with my client's previous management, who established a competing company located in my client's former residence;
- Your sudden departure during the aforementioned period on extended sick leave (from June 5,2021 to July 15,2021 - according to the sickness certificates), during which during this period, the mobile device used by my client for the purpose of receiving orders and/or quotes from her clients remained in the hands of your client, despite many requests to return the mobile device to my client - to no avail;
And if this is not enough, and miraculously, during the entire aforementioned period, not a single order and/or price quote was transferred from your client to my client.
- I would like to emphasize that the aforesaid suspicion is further validated, while the attempts of my client and/or anyone on her behalf to obtain your client by telephone during this period were fruitless."
- On July 29,2021, the plaintiff and his counsel appeared for a hearing (Appendix 10 to his affidavit). At the meeting, it was claimed that he had lost confidence in the plaintiff in light of his relations with Mr. Bazara. The plaintiff replied at length that his relationship with Mr. Bazara was personal and that he had no working relationship with him. During the hearing, the plaintiff said, inter alia, that the attitude towards him was inappropriate and that he wished to continue his work, but not under a cloud.
- On August 2,2021, the defendant's CEO contacted the plaintiff and asked him whether he would be willing to undertake not to work for Mr. Bazzara for three months after he finished his employment with the defendant (transcript of the recording of the conversation, Appendix 8 to the defendant's affidavits). The plaintiff refused. Later that day, a dismissal letter was sent to him (Appendix 11 to his affidavit), informing him of his dismissal the next day, August 3,2021, and the defendant waived his presence at work during the notice period, except: "calls or requests to be addressed to you by the CEO."
- On February 12,2024, the claim was filed in this case, in which the plaintiff petitioned for payment of the following components and compensation: ILS 37,222 for sick days; vacation pay in the amount of ILS 11,954; holiday pay in the amount of ILS 35,210; compensation for unlawful dismissal in the amount of ILS 100,000; compensation for deterioration of conditions in July 2020 in the amount of ILS 10,177; and compensation for breach of the obligation to provide pay slips in the amount of ILS 20,000.
During the litigation in the case, the claims for sick pay and holiday pay were dismissed by consent, after the plaintiff realized that he was not entitled to payment of these components. It was also agreed that subject to the payment of vacation redemption in the amount of ILS 1,175, the claim for vacation redemption would be deleted, and the defendant paid the amount with tax deduction in accordance with its notice of February 5,2026. Hence, three components of a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage remained for discussion and decision.