Bnei Yehuda's Claims
- In general, Bnei Yehuda argues that employment relations in the soccer industry should be examined in the industrial context of the specific industry. According to her, in examining the uniqueness of the employment relationship between the parties, the same conditions and rules in labor law cannot be applied to the football industry. According to her, this is not a marginal issue, but rather a major element in examining an employee's entitlement to conditions by virtue of labor law.
- Severance pay - In examining the uniqueness of the football industry, it is necessary to reach the conclusion that the provisions of section 9 of the Severance Pay Law cannot apply to the players. Bnei Yehuda bases its argument on the extreme change in circumstances that can occur between the date of signing the extension of the employment contract and the end of the season (for example, relegation to the league or qualifying for European enterprises on the other hand), to the fact that, by virtue of the regulations that apply to the teams (in Israeli law and international regulations), employment contracts in the industry are contracts for a fixed period and that the teams cannot agree otherwise.
In addition, it was argued that the application of section 9 of the Severance Pay Law will lead to the limitation of the ability of the football team to manage the sport independently of the conduct of the sport as a sporting and competitive field and the opinions and wishes of the parties, so that the application of the section in fact violates the purpose of the law. These reasons were also expressed in the standard contract to which the parties are obligated by virtue of the regulation in the football industry in Israel, which stipulates that the salary set in the contract constitutes a total and final consideration for all the components to which the player is entitled.
Alternatively, Bnei Yehuda argued that the court erred in determining that the severance pay would not be calculated on the basis of the minimum wage as set out in Zubas's employment agreement or according to the average wage in the economy in accordance with the provisions of the General Extension Order Regarding Pension Insurance.
- Weekly rest pay - the very filing of a claim under this component is in bad faith, taking into account the natural employment pattern in the industry in which the games are mostly played on Saturdays. Alternatively, Bnei Yehuda claimed, Zubas received a compensatory rest in any case for working on the weekly rest (as stated in his case – Sunday). The Regional Court erred in calculating the rest hours to which Zubas is entitled.
- The redemption of annual leave did not give weight to the fact that Zubas was paid for periods when he did not work, including summer vacations, national team games, and holidays according to the Jewish religion. Alternatively, it was argued that even if he were entitled to vacation redemption payment, in accordance with his employment contracts, it should be calculated according to the minimum wage and not according to his contractual salary.
- Holiday pay - Zubas is not entitled to holiday pay for the reasons detailed in relation to the lack of entitlement to remuneration for weekly rest work. Alternatively, it was argued that his entitlement, to the extent that it exists, should be calculated according to the minimum wage.
- Convalescence pay – The Regional Court erred in its determination with respect to this component in light of the fact that convalescence pay in the amount of NIS 300 per month was paid to Zubas.
Zubas Claims
- First, we note that Zubas's summaries as a respondent in the Bnei Yehuda appeal were submitted with considerable delay and without a proper request to submit the summaries on the date they were submitted. In accordance with the decision of the Registrar of the Tribunal, Judge Hani Tal-Primor, it was determined that the summaries would be accepted for registration, while his procedural conduct would be taken into account in the framework of the ruling on costs in the proceeding. We will address this at the end of our remarks.
- In general, it was argued that no weight, and certainly no significant weight, should be given to the wage conditions of the players in the industry or to the regulations that apply in the industry. According to Zubas, a soccer player is no different: a soccer player is worked in various industries with excess conditions, and in any case, the regulation that applies in the industry does not override cogent legislation.
- Severance pay – Most of Bnei Yehuda's claims regarding entitlement to severance pay relate to the factual determinations of the Regional Court, and therefore there is no room to intervene in them. With regard to the rest of its arguments, Zubas referred to the regional court's reasoning in its ruling.
- Remuneration for weekly rest work – the structure of employment in the industry and the permit given to work on Shabbat cannot be used as a reason for non-payment of a cogent right. In the meantime, Zubas referred to the fact that in other industries where their employment pattern requires weekly rest work, compensation is also paid for this component (rescue force personnel, doctors, etc.).
- Redemption of annual leave – Bnei Yehuda's claim for the deduction of Jewish holiday days was raised for the first time in the framework of the appeal and constitutes an expansion of a prohibited front. In any event, Bnei Yehuda did not prove its claims in this instance in the absence of an authentic registration that was made in real time, as determined in the judgment.
- Holiday Allowance - Bnei Yehuda did not present any record regarding absence or payment for the holidays. In fact, Bnei Yehuda admitted in the regional court that she did not pay Zubas extra for work during the holidays according to his religion.
- Convalescence pay - Zubas referred to the rulings of the Regional Court regarding the unlawful split of wages in the slips that were issued.
The arguments of the parties in the Zubas appeal