The plaintiff claims that the payments made by means of pay slips in lieu of benefits and compensation are unlawful in light of the provision of section 28 of the Severance Pay Law and the provisions of the Foreign Workers Deposit Law, when there was no obligation not to deposit in the deposit of infiltrators.
- On the other hand, the defendant claims that she paid the plaintiff in lieu of pension deposits and compensation in the pay slip and that she owed nothing in this regard. According to her, the insurance companies do not insure foreign workers with pensions, and therefore there was no choice but to take the approximate execution and pay it as part of the pay slip (paragraphs 20-21 of the statement of defense and paragraphs 26-30 of Mordechai's affidavit in Mehri's claim). Moreover, the defendant claims that the plaintiff's calculations were made on the basis of incorrect hourly wages, without taking into account the actual working hours and without reducing the amounts paid to him in the pay slip.
- After reviewing the arguments, evidence and testimonies, we have reached the conclusion that the lawsuit in respect of this component should be accepted in
- Sections 1k1-1k9 of the Foreign Workers Law stipulate the obligation to deposit funds for the benefit of foreign workers defined as infiltrators - funds that will be transferred to them upon their departure from Israel. Section 1K1 of the Law establishes the obligation to deposit a deposit in an amount equal to 16% of the wages to be paid by the employer. In the High Court of Justice 2293/17 Esther Tzagui Gerseghar - The Knesset (April 23, 2020), the obligation to deposit the employee's share (at a rate of 20% also prescribed in the same section of the law) was canceled. Section 1k1(f) states that in the said section the expression "wages" is the wage that is taken into account for the purpose of calculating severance pay under section 13 of the Severance Pay Law.
- Due to the various purposes underlying the obligation to deposit infiltrators, the question arises as to the very possibility of appealing for an exchange of deposits for infiltrators' deposits, under the actual deposit of the funds (as stated in Labor Appeal (National) 70646-11-20 B. RESOURCES IN A TAX APPEAL AGAINST TEAME FSAHAYE KIBROM (5.9.21)).
- In the present case, the defendant claimed that the payment was made as part of the pay slip and not by way of depositing in the deposit of foreign workers for a number of reasons: First, the defendant claims that it decided to pay everyone in a sweeping manner on the pay slip instead of deposits for compensation and benefits in order to prevent confusion between the deposits in respect of the foreign workers who are infiltrators and the foreign workers who entered Israel legally and are employed by it. Second, it was claimed that there were technical difficulties in making deposits in the deposit of foreign workers, since the visa of the infiltrating foreign worker (including Mehri) was not always valid, and that at a certain point they gave up trying to deposit into the designated account that did not recognize the details of the old visa. Third, it was claimed that some of the workers who had become accustomed to receiving payment on the pay slip threatened to leave if it was not paid to them directly. In addition, it was argued that in any case there is no possibility of making deposits for foreign workers in an insurance company (paragraphs 26-29 of Mordechai's affidavit and his testimony at pp. 47-48 of Peru).
- The defendant's arguments regarding the reasons for not making the deposits to the infiltrators' deposit are difficult, since they point to technical and other difficulties that are not relevant in view of the obligation under the provisions of the law to make the deposit in respect of the plaintiff in the infiltrators' deposit during the period of his employment.
- However, since the plaintiff ended working for the defendant several years ago and it was not clarified before us whether it is possible to deposit infiltrators retroactively and if so, what is the period of time that can be done and for what period, and in any case he is an employee in the cleaning industry, so there should be no gap between the deposits in accordance with the expansion order in the cleaning industry and the provision requiring a deposit of 16%, we were of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, The plaintiff is entitled to monetary compensation for the failure to make the deposits, so that the payment will be transferred directly to him, according to the "approximate execution" doctrine.
- In light of our determination that the pay slips are unreliable, including the registration regarding payment in lieu of compensation and benefits, the plaintiff is entitled to payment for this component according to the salary claimed by him, subject to the limit of ILS 40, and without deducting the amounts specified that were paid in the framework of the pay slip in lieu of compensation and pension.
- In other words, the plaintiff is entitled to payment according to the calculation as follows:
- The first period of employment (9/2020 - 7/2021). The plaintiff's entitlement is to payment in the amount of (11 months * 108 hours per month * ILS 40 per hour * 16%) = ILS 7,603.2 ;
- The second work period (8/2021 - 1/3/2023). The plaintiff's entitlement is to payment in the amount of (19 months * 182 hours per month * ILS 40 per hour * 16%) + (1 day * 8 hours * ILS 40 per hour * 16%) = ILS 22,182.4 .
Antitrust - 29,785.6 ILS.
- However, once the plaintiff set the amount of compensation according to this alternative at ILS 18,146 for reasons of fees, the plaintiff will receive this sum.
Compensation for Illegal Pay Slips
- As stated above, we have determined that the plaintiff's pay slips do not reflect his actual work. The coupons that were issued for him included basic salary that did not reflect reality, and the plaintiff also received cash in amounts beyond those listed in the pay slip. Hence, the coupons were knowingly produced in contravention of the requirements of the Wage Protection Law. In light of the above, we determine that the plaintiff is entitled to the full compensation claimed by him for this component in the sum of ILS 18,600.
Compensation by virtue of the Notice to Employee Law
- Section 1 of the Notice to Employee Law states that "'an employer shall give to the employee, no later than thirty days from the day the employee began to work for him... a written notice detailing the employee's working conditions in accordance with the provisions of this law ..."
- Providing notice of the terms of employment is of great importance, as it ensures that the employee will have information regarding the terms of his employment in a manner that will help him determine his rights, and it may reduce disputes between the employee and the employer (Labor Appeal 154/10 (National) Clara Schneider - Nitzanim Security in a Tax Appeal (May 3, 2011)).
- In accordance with the case law, this is not a purely technical requirement, but rather a substantive duty that is required, inter alia, as part of the duty of good faith that is required in an employment relationship. This is in order to inform the employee in a transparent and complete manner about all his working conditions, to eliminate misunderstandings or question marks regarding the working conditions, and to prevent legal disputes regarding the agreed working conditions (the Schneider case).
- By virtue of Section 5 of the Notice to an Employee Law, the Regional Labor Court is empowered to award compensation for a violation of the provisions of the Law, even if no pecuniary damage has been caused, at a rate that it deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case, in an amount not exceeding ILS 15,000. The section also states that the court may, for special reasons to be recorded, award compensation in a different amount.
- However, the court has discretion in all matters relating to awarding compensation in this context. Failure to provide notice in accordance with the Notice to Employee Law does not necessarily require a compensation award - each case must be examined in accordance with its circumstances, taking into account the rationale underlying the Notice to Employee Law (Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv) 52613-09-12 Uriah Shomron - Moshe Tabib (5.7.15)).
- As detailed above, our conclusion is that the employment agreement signed with the plaintiff did not reflect the wage terms that were agreed upon in practice between the parties. Therefore, even though the plaintiff signed an employment agreement, this does not fulfill the requirement of the Notice to Employee Law regarding the obligation to provide notice to the employee regarding the working conditions.
- Notwithstanding the aforesaid, and despite the defendant's conduct whose severity should not be taken lightly, which if it had not behaved in this way, most (if not all) of the disputes would have been superfluous, in the circumstances of the case we found that the plaintiff should not be compensated for this, for the following reasons:
- First, in the statement of claim as well as in the affidavit, the plaintiff chose to sweepingly deny his signature on the employment agreement, a claim that turned out to be unreliable and was ultimately abandoned in his summaries. This conduct, which includes a denial of the signature of a document that was actually signed, suffers from procedural bad faith that is inconsistent with a compensation award for failure to give notice to the employee lawfully.
- Second, the plaintiff signed the employment agreement, which was drawn up in a language whose testimony indicates in real time that he understood it (even though the registrar did not understand), including that he understood that he was signing a document that did not reflect the terms of the salary that had been agreed upon with him. The plaintiff did not ask the defendant to amend the said sum in real time, and throughout the period of his employment he refrained from doing so. At the time of filing the claim, the plaintiff included the aforementioned element of the claim, even though he had worked for the defendant for a significant period of time in violation of the agreed terms in the employment contract and was aware of it. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff's petition for compensation for this constitutes bad faith conduct.
- The proper balance is to accept his substantive arguments regarding the amount of wages and to calculate his social rights according to the salary that the plaintiff claimed and proved by him, but to reject his demand for compensation in respect of this component (see similar matters ruled in the judgment in the Labor Dispute Case (Be'er Sheva Regions) 6747-09-20 NICOLAE MARISTAN - Alon Company - Human Databases for Construction in a Tax Appeal (January 28, 2025) (the appeal was deleted on the recommendation of the National Court on July 20, 2025)).
- In light of the aforesaid, the demand to pay compensation for failure to give notice to the employee in accordance with the law is liable to be rejected.
Hilizga's Claim