It was further argued that the provisions of section 9 of the Severance Pay Law should be interpreted in accordance with the purposes of the law and the specific circumstances of the proceeding. Considering the totality of the events, and taking into account the fact that a dialogue with Amos took place throughout the period and the fact that in the seasons preceding the termination of his employment, his employment contract was also signed near the end of the season, the team should be considered to have fulfilled the provisions of the law.
- Hearing - In the circumstances of the case, Maccabi Netanya is not obligated to hold a hearing.
- Redemption of annual leave - It was claimed that Amos used all of his vacation days during the break during the season, at the end of the season until the end of May, and during the outbreak of the Corona pandemic.
- Expenses – Finally, it was argued that the amount of expenses awarded to her significantly exceeds the sums of expenses awarded by the labor courts, taking into account the scope of the proceeding and its duration.
Amos' Claims
- Amos argued that most of Maccabi Netanya's appeal revolved around the factual determinations of the regional court, which the appellate court does not tend to intervene in, and that they were based on evidence brought before the court. It was argued that this case does not fall within the scope of the exceptional cases in which the appellate court can and should intervene.
- Weekly rest pay – it is claimed that the law stipulates that the Hours of Work and Rest Law applies to it. Maccabi Netanya has not been able to show that his work should be considered a "special trust" position as defined in the law. His work does not expose him to sensitive information, his salary is not exceptionally high, he does not have exceptional independence in his work, etc.; The uniqueness of the sport of football does not lead to the conclusion that Amos is not entitled to his cogent rights; It was emphasized that to the extent that it is correct to exclude the football industry from the application of certain laws, this requires regulation by the legislature; In the absence of such an arrangement, all of Maccabi Netanya's claims regarding Amos' salary or his employment pattern are irrelevant.
It was also argued that Maccabi Netanya's claims that Amos was given a compensatory rest in lieu of his entitlement to payment for work on a rest day should be rejected, since the Regional Court ruled that the scope of his job was full-time, a determination that was not appealed.
- Eligibility for severance pay - Maccabi Netanya's claim that Amos resigned and was not fired, when he refused to accept its offer for a new employment contract, was raised for the first time in the framework of the appeal and constitutes an expansion of a prohibited front. In any case, this is an argument that should be rejected, due to the factual determination of the Regional Court that Amos was fired from his job with the group.
Amos' signing with another team (Maccabi Petah Tikva) and Maccabi Netanya's claims regarding the date of the signing there have no significance. In any case, Maccabi Netanya did not meet the requirements of Section 9 of the Severance Pay Law, and did not offer Amos a contract three months before the termination of his employment contract. Therefore, all of Maccabi Netanya's other claims regarding Amos' behavior close to the end of the contract are irrelevant and in any case are incorrect.