The Regional Court's Judgment
Salary
- The Regional Court rejected Maccabi Netanya's argument that in light of the provision of employment contracts according to which Amos' salary reflects the "total cost", his salary should be considered as including all social rights. The argument was rejected on the following grounds:
- Prohibition of Comprehensive Wages – The Tribunal ruled that in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Wages Protection Law, 5718-1958 (hereinafter: the Wages Protection Law), the payment of a total wage is prohibited, in the absence of the conditions set forth in the law, and in the absence of a collective agreement that permits the payment of overtime or weekly rest pay as part of the salary.
- Severance pay – The tribunal ruled that it had not been proven that the wage agreements were approved by the Minister of Labor as required by section 28 of the Severance Pay Law, 5723-1963 (hereinafter – the Severance Pay Law), and therefore the severance pay could not be included in Amos' salary.
- Convalescence pay - The Regional Court referred to the judgment in the Ackerman[1] case, which ruled that in order to include convalescence pay as part of an employee's salary, his explicit consent must be obtained. The court ruled that this consent was not obtained in our case and that the agreement that the payment to the player includes the "total cost" should not be regarded as sufficient consent in this regard. In the absence of an appeal against the obligation to pay convalescence pay, we have no need to address this determination.
- In addition, the court noted that there is no reason to accept Maccabi Netanya's argument that due to Amos' "high" salary rate, he should be considered to include social rights.
Scope of the transaction
- The Regional Court ruled that since the employment contracts signed between the parties determine the framework of Amos' employment and determine, among other things, that the employee will participate in all Maccabi Netanya training and games, a duty that the team has complied with, cannot stand the argument that, due to the scope of training and games, the scope of his job should not be considered full-time. We note that this determination is mainly relevant to the issue of convalescence pay, and in the absence of an appeal regarding this charge, we do not need to address it.
Copied from Nevo