Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv) 44232-09-22 Woldemariam Mahari – Glossy Cleaning M.B. Clean Ltd.

23 February 2026

Was it agreed with the plaintiffs to pay only the minimum wage (as the employer claimed) or was a higher wage agreed upon (as the plaintiffs claimed), and accordingly are the pay slips fictitious? This is the main issue in the proceeding before us. 

Factual Background

1. We have before us the plaintiffs' claim, Mr. Woldemariam Mahari (hereinafter - Mahari) ( Case Number: 40399-12-23).), Mr. Sagaber Grezgabier Haylizge (hereinafter - Haylizge) (Case Number: 44232-09-22.), Mr. Habtom Bereketa Nemariam (hereinafter - Habtom) (Case Number: 54732-03-23.), Mr. Iyob Kifletsion (hereinafter - Ayoub), and Mr. Goytom Kibrom (hereinafter - Goytom) (Case Number: 4528-09-22. As stated, Gautom and Ayoub filed the statement of claim together, to receive various rights deriving from the period of their employment and as a result of its termination, and the hearing of the cases was consolidated in a decision of January 15, 2024 (in the framework of labor dispute 44232-09-22).
2. The main dispute in such claims relates to the amount of the plaintiffs' wages, whether they were agreed upon with only a minimum wage (as claimed by the employer) or a higher basic wage that did not include the payment of social benefits (as claimed by the plaintiffs), and accordingly whether the pay slips were fictitious.
3. Defendant 1 - Glossy Cleaning M.B. Clean Ltd.  is a company with a cleaning contractor license number 4532, and there is no dispute that it was the employer of the plaintiffs during the relevant periods (hereinafter - the defendant).
4. Defendant 2 - Merkaz HaTorah Rehovot - Maor HaTalmud - is the service provider in which the plaintiffs actually worked (hereinafter - the service client or defendant 2). Defendant 2 runs the Talmud Torah Yeshiva in the city of Rehovot.
5. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The plaintiffs were employed by the defendant in the premises of defendant 2 during the following periods:

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)

1. From September 1, 2020 until September 3, 2023 (in March 2023, he worked for a day or two). In addition, the defendant claims that he returned to work for her in the months of 6/2023 - 9/2023, on Saturdays only - but this period is not included in the claim;
2. Helizaga - from 1.9.2020 to 11/2021 (inclusive). According to the defendant, the plaintiff did community service and returned to work for her for one more month - a claim denied by the plaintiff (it should be noted that in his affidavit, Hizilaga claimed that he had worked for the defendant since September 2021, and in his testimony in court he also claimed this (pp.  1-2 of Peru).  However, in the summaries on his behalf (and as stated in the pay slips), he corrected and noted that he had started working for the defendant a year earlier, on 9/2020 (see: paragraph B of the plaintiff's summaries and paragraph 3 of the defendant's summaries).  With regard to the period after serving community service - the plaintiff denied that he had returned to work for the defendant, on the other hand, the defendant claimed in the affidavit that the plaintiff returned to work in April 2022 (as stated in paragraphs 15-16 of Mordechai's affidavit), but in the summaries she claimed that the plaintiff returned to work in January 2022 (paragraph 3 of the defendant's summaries).

• Habatum - from April 1, 2021 to mid-October 2021, business restrictions for about 6.5 months;

1. Ayoub - from 8/2021 to 5/2022 (according to the defendant) or 6/2022 (according to the plaintiff);
2. Gaitum - from April 2021 to June 2022 (according to the defendant) or 7/2022 (according to the plaintiff).
3. There is no dispute as to the applicability of the extension order in the cleaning industry to the plaintiffs' work, while the plaintiffs' rights were paid to them in accordance with the extension order during the period of employment (see, inter alia, what is stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Mordechai Yeshaya in labor dispute 40399-12-13).
4. There is no dispute that the defendant is a company that provides cleaning and manpower services and that it was the plaintiffs' employer during the relevant periods, including paying them their wages and issuing them pay slips.
5. Moreover, there is no dispute that the defendant employed the plaintiffs with defendant 2 in cleaning as part of an engagement for the provision of outsourced cleaning services.
6. With regard to defendant 2, the plaintiffs claimed in the statement of claim that she should be regarded as an employer or as a joint employer, in light of the supervision by defendant 2's managers and the use of her tools and the uniforms provided by her. Alternatively, the plaintiffs claimed that defendant 2 has responsibility as a service provider under sections 25, 26 and 28 of the Law for Increasing Enforcement of Labor Laws, 5772-2011.

Witnesses and the Course of the Litigation

10. On November 20, 2022, Gautom testified in a preliminary testimony; On 31 May 2023, Habatum testified in preliminary testimony; On February 12, 2024, Ayub testified in a preliminary testimony.

Copied from Nevo

11. On September 30, 2024, an evidentiary hearing was held. The plaintiffs from Hari and Helizga testified on their own behalf.  On behalf of the defendant, Mr. Mordechai Yeshaya, the defendant's manager (hereinafter - Mordechai), testified.
12. It should be noted that in the framework of the judgment we will include a reference to a party named Almog, whom Mordechai stated in his testimony before us as someone who served as an operations manager for the defendant (hereinafter referred to as Almog), but an affidavit was not submitted on his behalf and he was not brought to testify before us.

Discussion and Decision

13. After considering the entirety of the parties' arguments, evidence and testimonies, we determine that the claims should be accepted in part, as will be detailed in detail below.

Plaintiffs' Wages

14. We noted that the main dispute in the case relates to the level of the plaintiffs' hourly wages. Therefore, we will first conduct a cross-sectional examination of this question for all the plaintiffs.
15. As stated in the Kaplan v. Levy ruling and the rulings that followed it (Labor Appeal (National) 20880-07-20 Tesfaselase Desale Zerezgi - Kaplan & Levy in a Tax Appeal (June 20, 2022) (hereinafter: "the Kaplan v.  Levy Rule"); LABOR APPEAL (NATIONAL) 59560-01-21 ABDALLA IBRAHIM ABDALLA ABAKER - Y.B.  Record Resources in Tax Appeals (October 17, 2023); Labor Appeal (National) 31478-01-21 Tsegay Hagos Gebremskel - Y.B.  Record Resources in Tax Appeals (February 21, 2024).  In the event of a dispute regarding the amount of the agreed wage, "the first question that must be checked is whether the employee received notice to the employee in accordance with the requirements of the Notice to the Employee and Job Candidate Law (Conditions of Work and Selection and Acceptance Procedures), 5762-2002 (hereinafter: the Notice to the Employee Law), which was supposed to make the disputes regarding the agreed wage redundant.  In the Kaplan v.  Levy ruling, it was held that as a rule, the employee's testimony regarding the failure to give notice is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the employer, and he must meet it by presenting a copy of the notice form to the employee or alternatively a reasonable explanation as to why he is unable to present it.  It was further determined that the best way is to submit the notice form to the employee through a submitting witness, i.e., as a rule, the document editor or a person who witnessed its editing (with the possibility of flexibility in appropriate cases, as detailed there in detail).  It was further clarified that there is no obligation by virtue of the Notice to Employee Law to sign the notice form, but it is clear that insofar as the form has his signature along with his confirmation of receipt - it has evidentiary value.  If the employee denies that it is his signature, the employer has the burden of proving that it is indeed the employee's signature, and the employee does not have the burden of proving that his signature is forged.  Accordingly, if it is not possible to determine whether the signature was forged or not, the document should be viewed as a document without a signature...  (See also: Labor Appeal (National) 14409-10-21Afte Amaniel - Kaplan & Levy in Tax Appeal (June 21, 2023))."
16. With regard to the language of the notice given to the employee, the Kaplan ruling ruled in Levy:

"The Notice to Employee Law (as opposed to the Foreign Workers Law) does not include an explicit provision regarding the language in which the notice must be delivered, although writing the notice in a language that is understandable to the employee is consistent with the purpose of the Notice to Employee Law.  However, since a foreign worker has the right by virtue of section 1c(a) of the Foreign Workers Law to receive the employment contract in a language he understands, this principle also affects a notice given to a foreign worker who has not received an employment contract in a language he understands.  In other words, in situations where the provision of section 1c(a) of the Foreign Workers Law was not complied with and the delivery of the notice to the employee was intended to fill the void created by the violation of the Foreign Workers Law, in our opinion, it is required to give notice to the employee in a language that he understands.  This requirement is implied by the spirit of the Foreign Workers Law, so that the notice to the employee can constitute an approximate performance of the purpose of the provision of section 1c(a) of the Foreign Workers Law."

17. The evidentiary rules detailed above lead to the conclusion that in the event that it is proven that no notice of the terms of employment was given or that it was given in a language that is not understood by the employee, the burden is transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant upon the delivery of the plaintiff's version in the affidavit. Later on, whether the burden was transferred or not, in any case, the entire fabric of evidence must be examined, with the parties' versions and their cross-referencing with the rest of the evidence in the case that will lead to a decision in the proceeding.
18. Our order of action in this judgment is as follows: We will examine whether the hourly wage of each and every plaintiff was according to what he claimed and therefore the registration in the pay slips is incorrect, or whether the registration in the pay slips reflects the parties' agreement so that they earned a minimum wage (ILS 29.12 per hour), as the defendant claiMs. In accordance with the conclusion, we will make an individual calculation in relation to each and every plaintiff in respect of the social rights claimed by him, and we will also relate to the liability of defendant 2 (if any).
19. It should be noted that although the hearing of the cases was consolidated, each claim was examined on its merits, on the basis of the evidentiary fabric that we had before us in relation to it. This is because we do not believe that an agreement with one plaintiff in relation to his hourly wage attests to the hourly wage that was agreed upon with another plaintiff or the manner in which the wage is paid in each and every case, and the fabric of evidence must be examined in relation to each case on its own merits. 
20. On the basis of the aforesaid and as will be detailed below, we have reached the conclusion that with the exception of Mehari's claim in which the plaintiff's version was accepted, in all the other four claims the defendant's version regarding the hourly wage was accepted, as will be detailed below at length.
21. As for Mahari - according to Mahri, from September 2020 to July 2021 - a period in which he was employed on Fridays and Saturdays (only), his hourly wage was ILS 40 net per hour on Fridays, and for each hour of work on Saturday he was paid ILS 46 per hour (paragraph 13D of the statement of claim and paragraph 6H of the plaintiff's affidavit).). From 8/2021 - 3/2023, he worked 7 days a week, and his hourly wage was ILS 40 net (Sunday - Friday) and ILS 46 net per hour on Saturday (13H for the statement of claim and 69 ILS for the plaintiff's affidavit).

The plaintiff claims that the calculation of his wages was by doubling the regular working hours by ILS 40 per hour and on Saturdays by doubling by ILS 46 per hour, and beyond that, nothing was paid and no total wage was agreed upon (paragraphs 14 of the statement of claim as well as paragraphs 6f, 6j, 6k of the plaintiff's affidavit).