However, the plaintiff's version that he should have been compensated in cash every month in the sum of ILS 35 per hour or ILS 37 per hour, and that he was paid only for his work hours (without overtime pay and related rights), is inconsistent with the distribution of the net salary in the total hours on the pay slips (which the plaintiff stated were correct). As detailed in the table below:
| Net payable (in NIS) | Antitrust Hours (on the slip) | Wages per hour (in NIS) | |
| Apr-21 | 1,951 | 55 | 35.47 |
| May-21 | 7,173 | 208 | 34.49 |
| Jun-21 | 7,540 | 218 | 34.59 |
| Jul-21 | 7,745 | 216 | 35.86 |
| Aug-21 | 7,294 | 208 | 35.07 |
| Sep-21 | 7,013 | 192 | 36.53 |
| Oct-21 | 7,294 | 208 | 35.07 |
| Nov-21 | 7,295 | 208 | 35.07 |
| Dec-21 | 7,586 | 216 | 35.12 |
| Jan-22 | 7,349 | 208 | 35.33 |
| Feb-22 | 6,404 | 177 | 36.18 |
| March-22 | 7,349 | 208 | 35.33 |
| Apr-22 | 6,517 | 177 | 36.82 |
| May-22 | 8,040 | 205 | 39.22 |
| Jun-22 | 3,798 | 63.42 | 59.89 |
- From the table as aforesaid, it can be seen that in the months 4/21, 7/21, 8/21, 9/21, 10/21, 11/21, 12/21, 1/22, 2/22 and 3/22, the hourly wage received from the net wage distribution in the total hours recorded in the pay slips is higher than ILS 35 per hour, and that in the months of 5/22 and 6/22 an hourly wage is higher than ILS 37 per hour. This is inconsistent with the plaintiff's version that he should have been paid in cash every month due to an error in the number of hours. Moreover, his version that there was always an error in the pay slips in the number of hours is inconsistent with his statement that the recording of the total hours in the pay slips was correct (paragraph 7G of the plaintiff's affidavit).
- Indeed, when the defendant showed the plaintiff in the cross-examination that if the number of hours recorded in the slip for the month of 4/21 (55 hours) was multiplied by his hourly wage claimed by him - ILS 35 per hour, it turns out that he should not have been paid supplementary in cash, the plaintiff changed his version once more and testified that he did not receive payment in cash every month:
"Q. You say that when you started working you received 35 ILS an hour.
- That's right.
- 55 hours of work, if multiplied by 35 comes out 1,925 ILS. Is this money you need to see?
The slip has a net payment of ILS 1,951. That's what went to the bank, right?
- Yes it is for the bank.
- So you didn't receive cash this month?
- I didn't get it.
- So you didn't receive cash every month?
- At first not"
(p. 4, paras. 31-36 and p. 5, paras. 1-4 of the proc. of November 20, 2022)
- His testimony that there was no cash payment only during the first period of his employment is also inconsistent with what is stated in the table above, according to which even in the later months (and even in the last two months of employment) there was no need to supplement wages in cash because the hourly wage was higher than the salary claimed by him.
- We have not lost sight of the fact that the telephone conversation between the plaintiff and Mordechai (the date of which is unknown) indicates that an hourly payment of ILS 37 per hour was agreed upon and that there was a cash payment in addition to the bank transfer.
However, Mordechai noted in his affidavit that if there were wage differences due to hours that the employee claimed were not reported, and on the basis of a relationship of trust, he would pay wage differentials (paragraph 30 of Mordechai's affidavit). This is also consistent with what he said in that telephone conversation, the transcript of which was submitted as evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim, where Mordechai noted that "mistakes will always be in the salary" (p. 2, para. 22 of the transcript of the conversation between Giotom and Mordechai, Appendix B to the plaintiff's affidavit).