Maccabi Netanya's claims
- Weekly rest pay - According to Maccabi Netanya, in examining the exceptions set out in the Hours of Work and Rest Law, with an emphasis on that set forth in section 30(a)(5) of the Law relating to the position of "personal trust", consideration must be given to the uniqueness that exists in the football industry that justifies setting criteria different from those set in previous case law. Among other things, Maccabi Netanya refers to the low scope of Amos' job, his high salary, the demands related to his personal lifestyle beyond work hours, and the unique employment model of the soccer player, which is claimed, among other things, not controlled by the employing team. Maccabi Netanya claims that the exclusion of Amos does not harm the purposes of the law.
Alternatively, Maccabi Netanya argues that even if the Hours of Work and Rest Law applies, in any case Amos' exceptional employment conditions take into account the consideration to which he was entitled by virtue of the law. It was emphasized in the reply summaries that her claim does not exclude all soccer players from the application of the law, but rather that Amos himself should be excluded taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
With regard to weekly rest work, Maccabi Netanya argued that even if the law applies to Amos, he is not entitled to remuneration for weekly rest work, due to the fact that it provided him with compensatory rest in lieu of the payment of the remuneration. According to her, after working on Saturdays, the players, including Amos, were given rest in accordance with the requirements set out in the law.
- The circumstances of termination of employment - The Regional Court erred when it ruled that Amos was not offered a contract 3 months prior to the termination of his employment contract in the 2021/2022 season, as required by Section 9(b) of the Severance Pay Law. The judgment did not refer to the negotiations that took place with him prior to the period required by law, meetings that Amos even confirmed took place. The court did not address the fact that Maccabi Netanya agreed to continue employing him under the same conditions, but it was Amos who asked to upgrade the terms of his employment, and this should be seen as a refusal to renew the employment contract offered by it.
Maccabi Netanya supported its claim, among other things, by the fact that already on June 19, 2022, Amos signed a new employment contract with the Maccabi Petah Tikva team, moving on to the date on which he allegedly learned of Maccabi Netanya's intention to terminate his employment. According to Maccabi Netanya, the fact that negotiations with Maccabi Petah Tikva took place before the signing of the contract with the latter, shows that Amos had no intention of extending his contract with Maccabi Netanya, and therefore he cannot be legally considered to have been fired.