The witness, Mr. Woldemariam: Yes, it's my signature but I wrote 'I don't understand'.
Adv. Rafael: 'I don't understand'?
The witness, Mr. Woldemariam: 'I don't understand' I wrote.
Adv. Rafael: Oh, 'I don't understand',
The witness, Mr. Woldemariam: Yes.
Adv. Rafael: Okay, what language is it, I don't know, what language?
The witness, Mr. Woldemariam: It's Amharic.
Adv. Rafael: But earlier your friend said in Tigrithi.
The witness, Mr. Woldemariam: It's similar, Amharic and Tigritian are similar, it's not exactly Tigryan.
Adv. Rafael: Okay, all right, I'm asking you to tell me what's written here, pointing to the name area, the employee's name.
Adv. Sharon: What, about that?
Adv. Rafael: In the employment agreement N/2. What's written here?
The witness, Mr. Woldemariam: Full Name"
- From the aforesaid, it appears that the plaintiff approved receipt of notice to the employee. His claim that he did not understand what was written in it does not appear to be reliable. The notice to the employee is drafted in Tigray, and although the plaintiff claimed in his testimony that he had written in the notice to the employee in the Amharic language that he "did not understand", prior to the evidentiary hearing he requested to summon an interpreter for the Tigri language and stated in the application that this was his mother tongue (as stated in the request to summon an interpreter of September 26, 2024). It should be noted that in the summaries it was claimed by the plaintiffs that the details in the notice to the employee, which were filled out by hand, were filled out retroactively (paragraph 11 of the plaintiffs' summaries). We are of the opinion that this is an argument that was not raised in the statement of claim or in the plaintiff's affidavit and is a hypothesis , and therefore it should be rejected outright. In light of the above, we determine that his claim that he did not understand what was written in the notice to the employee is not true.
- It should be noted that the lower part of the notice on the first page of the notice to the employee in which the hourly wage is supposed to appear was cut in a photocopy of the document (Appendix N2 to Mordechai's affidavit). Therefore, it cannot be seen that ILS 29.12 per hour (minimum wage) was indeed agreed, but it seems that there was no dispute that this was stated in the notice to Mehri's employee.
- Once it is proven that he received a notice to the employee and that he understood what was written in it, this means that the burden of proof remains on the plaintiff's shoulders. However, as will be detailed below, the analysis of the evidence is sufficient to show that the actual agreements between the parties were different from those presented in the notice to the employee. Let us elaborate.
- As stated above, Mehri declared that his hourly wage was in fact a payment of ILS 40 per hour in net values, and that on Saturdays he earned ILS 46 per hour in net values. We find support for this in the transcript of the conversation that the plaintiff attached, which proves that in fact his salary is calculated according to these rates, and not according to the subscription in the coupons (paragraph 6f of Mehri's affidavit). In that conversation, which took place between him and Mordechai and Almog, the following was said (see Appendix C to Mehri's affidavit):
"Almog: ... You worked 100 hours,