Therefore, as it appears that in the employment of Amos as a 12-month employee in each season for which the payment is spread over 10 months, we must examine the exploitation in the light of the period of employment. Therefore, it should be noted that the game season ends every year before the end of May[27] and training begins at the end of June[28] - according to Amos himself. Since this is a vacation of about one month, and taking into account the seniority that Amos has accumulated, this is sufficient to bring to the conclusion that Amos has used all the vacation days to which he is entitled. In this regard, it should be recalled that in the Patlock case [29] , this court upheld the ruling of the Regional Court according to which a fitness coach of a soccer team (Bnei Yehuda) is not entitled to annual leave since it was used annually during the winter break (during the months of December – January) and the summer vacation (the remainder of the month of May until the beginning of preparations for the following season in June), even though his annual/seasonal salary was paid in 10 monthly installments.
- According to the second alternative, the relevant period for employment is only 10 months, between August and May of the following year. According to this alternative, it should be noted that Amos' entitlement is relative to the period of employment. According to the seniority that the player gained during his employment, each year he was entitled to an annual vacation of 13 calendar days.
Maccabi Netanya's argument that the season ends during the month of May should be accepted, and therefore in the period between the end of the season and the end of May, Amos took advantage of his vacation days (compare the Petlock case).
In addition, Maccabi Netanya claimed that even during the national team break, which occurred in a number of appearances during the year, Amos was not at its disposal and that this period during which he was paid his salary should be considered as the period in which he used his vacation days. Amos did not dispute the data presented by Maccabi Netanya in this matter and in any case these data were not contradicted by him, neither in the proceeding in the regional court nor in the proceeding before us, and therefore Maccabi Netanya's argument in this matter is accepted. Moreover, the order of magnitude of the days of absence due to the national team break is consistent with the data presented by the Administration in its position as presented above.