Salary
- The court rejected Bnei Yehuda's argument that the base salary defined in Zubas's employment contract and his pay slips reflected the payment of all of his rights. The tribunal relied on section 5 of the Wage Protection Law and section 28 of the Severance Pay Law. In addition, the argument that Zubas's rights should be calculated in accordance with the minimum wage as stipulated in his employment contract was rejected.
- It was determined that the split in Zubas's pay slips of the components of the travel expenses and the convalescence pay from the salary was done artificially, and that the addition of these components to the salary results in the salary agreed upon in the employment contract. It was determined that Bnei Yehuda did not show a reason for splitting the fare (in light of the fact that Zubas received a car from her), and that Zubas's silence regarding the acceptance of the existing situation as consent, both because the pay slips were not issued to him regularly and because the pay slips were in the Hebrew language he does not speak.
- On the other hand, the court rejected Zubas's argument that the economics fees and the bonus he received for accumulating points should be considered as part of his base salary. Regarding the economy allowance, it was determined that it was an authentic reimbursement of expenses, and regarding the points bonus, it was determined that it was a salary component that was contingent on a real condition.
Circumstances of the termination of Zubas's employment
- The Regional Court ruled that Zubas should be considered as someone who was fired from his job. The court noted that the burden of proof to show that Bnei Yehuda offered him a new employment contract three months before the end of his employment contract at the end of the 2019/2020 season rested on its shoulders, and Bnei Yehuda did not meet the burden of proving this.
- In addition, Bnei Yehuda's argument that Zubas's salary included the payment of severance pay was rejected, as well as its claim that he is not entitled to severance pay both because of his high salary and because of the fact that his contract of employment was drafted for a fixed period in accordance with the rules of FIFA and the Association, since these arguments cannot override the provisions of the Severance Pay Law as they are cogent provisions.
Zubas' salary cut due to the coronavirus pandemic
- The Regional Court rejected Zubas's argument that the reduction in his salary in accordance with the appendix was coerced, and therefore Bnei Yehuda is obligated to refund him the amounts that were reduced from his salary.
Remedies Awarded
- The following are the remedies awarded in favor of Mr. Zubas:
- Severance pay - Bnei Yehuda was obligated to pay Zubas severance pay in the amount of NIS 168,758.
- The balance of basic wages - it was determined that Bnei Yehuda did not prove Zubas's debt to him and that the sum that she allegedly paid him was indeed paid. Therefore, Bnei Yehuda was obligated to pay him a balance of salary in the sum of NIS 12,702.
- Pension deposits - Bnei Yehuda's claim that Zubas's salary included payment in lieu of pension deposits was rejected. It also rejected its argument that according to the employment contract, his entitlement for this component should be calculated in accordance with the minimum wage. The court ruled that Zubas' entitlement for this component should be calculated in accordance with the average wage in the economy, in accordance with the provisions of the General Extension Order for Compulsory Pension. The court adopted the alternative calculation presented by Bnei Yehuda. Therefore, Zubas was awarded a difference in pension contributions in the amount of NIS 23,619.
- Remuneration for work during weekly rest - Bnei Yehuda's argument that the permit to work on a weekly rest day exempts it from its obligation to pay compensation for work on a weekly rest was rejected. It was held that from a criminal perspective, the permit allows an employee to employ an employee on the weekly day of rest, but it does not exempt the employer from paying the remuneration prescribed by law.
The Regional Court ruled that Bnei Yehuda did not prove that it had given Zubas hours of rest in exchange for payment of remuneration for work during the weekly rest. In this context, it was determined that since Zubas was a member of the Catholic Christian religion, his weekly day of rest was Sunday; Bnei Yehuda had to prove that for every hour of work during the weekly rest he received 2.5 hours of compensatory rest. In the absence of a record of Zubas's working hours, Bnei Yehuda did not meet the aforementioned burden of proof that rests on its shoulders.