As for the diaries, in the diaries everything was recorded.
To the court's question whether a cow does not feel well where it is being carved, I answer that it is collected, it is caught, every compartment in the area has pens, in the pen there is a facility called a cattle clip, and it is taken care of.
Plaintiff 1: Not every area has a place to take care of cows.
To the court's question as to whether the work is carried out in the residential area, I answer unequivocally. The center of the farm is where the residences were, both the workshop, the pens, where the animals and warehouses are cared for, and they also sit in the office to put the data in the computer software. There is work that is done to treat the dishes, the sheep pen, all the food preparation for the herd is done there. Most of the day the work on the farm is done in the center of the farm" (paras. 12-25, p. 6 of the prot., see also the testimony of Dvir: paras. 36-39, p. 31, paras. 1-2, p. 32 of the protégé).
- The defendant also added the following in the preliminary hearing:
"To the court's question as to whether there is a workshop in the center of the farm, I answer yes.
To the court's question as to whether the vaccinations and treatment of animals are carried out on the farm, I answer yes.
Vaccination is not carried out every day, every vaccination is carried out once a year. This is essential.
To the court's question, I reply that the offices are in the center of the farm. But 90% of the work is done outside the farm center. The food additive is in the logistics center and takes three days to prepare. A substance called silage, all the food is around the farm in the territories, around the logistics center. Each plot is around 1000 dunams, around the farm there is a cattle catch, the farm has three such areas where you can bring the cattle and take care of them. The treatment is all around. The food found on the farm is delivered by truck" (paras. 27-29, p. 6, paras. 1-6, p. 7 of the protégé, and also see the location report attached as Appendix 17 to the defendant's affidavit).
- In the case of Aryeh Shachar above, in which the matter of routine military security coordinators who were required to be present most of the day in the locality in which they were employed and lived was discussed; It was held that "the role of the appellants – whose concern, as stated, is ongoing security and constant presence in the sector for which they are responsible – is characterized by an inability to plan the full hours and framework of work, since significant parts of it are derived from changing operational needs. Thus, and for example, there is no doubt that the appellants' work cannot be terminated on a given day, while they are engaged in operational activity, for example, simply because their working hours deviated from the agreement or the limits of the law. The Regional Court was therefore under the impression that the appellants' role in practice does not allow for a clear time frame to be determined. This, it should be noted, is not because this is what the parties chose, for example, in order to allow the appellants maximum flexibility and in order to enable them to own another business, but because this is how the needs of the work and its unique characteristics dictated (compare: the Chen case)." Similar to the aforementioned matter, in his testimony before us, Noam confirmed that the order of work was determined by him, but in his opinion this does not mean that he can choose when to work (Q. 32-33, p. 39 of Pruitt), whereas Dvir confirmed that it is not possible to separate the working hours from the leisure hours, and he stated as follows in his testimony:
"Q: Please tell me, is it true that because of the nature of the work, it is impossible to separate working hours from overtime and holidays, this is the nature of the work that you knew in advance what you were going for?