An entrepreneur also served as CEO and a director in the company. In an investment agreement the parties also agreed on the continuing of employment of the entrepreneur but later the relationship deteriorated and the entrepreneur was dismissed at a moment of anger by a person who in fact was not empowered to dismiss him. When the board of directors requested the entrepreneur to come back to work after two and a half months he refused and sued for severance pay.
The Labor Court held that in order to check whether the termination was by the employer or the employee one need check whether the party who acted to terminate the relationship meant to end it and showed certainty as to such intention to the other party. In this case it is unclear whether the act was certain but because for two and a half months the entrepreneur was not allowed to come back to the office or be in contact with any of the employees, the circumstances should be construed as dismissal entitling to severance pay.