The witness, Mr. Yeshaya: He brought me a court order to show me that he was supposed to have community service. What day, what date, no, but okay, what, what, what's the point?
Adv. Sharon: Okay, so I'm telling you that you knew that a court order states when community service work begins.
The witness, Mr. Yeshaya: Okay, what's the point?
Adv. Sharon: Is that true?
The witness, Mr. Isaiah: Okay, it could be, well.
Adv. Sharon: Right, yes or no?
The witness, Mr. Yeshaya: Yes, okay."
(p. 74 of the transcript of September 30, 2024, paras. 2-22).
- In this state of affairs, we did not find that the reliability of one of the parties should be preferred over the other, including that the plaintiff's version should be preferred over the defendant's version, especially since the plaintiff's version did not give us a reliable impression as detailed above (see the analysis in the chapter dealing with the question of the amount of wages and the format of work hours).
- On the other hand, we are also unable to accept the defendant's claim that the plaintiff resigned and therefore the sum of ILS 3,727 should be deducted for the plaintiff's failure to give advance notice (as she claimed). This is because we have not been persuaded that in the circumstances of the case the plaintiff did indeed abandon his job as the defendant claiMs.
- As stated above, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff returned to work for her for a month after he finished serving his sentence. She attached to the support a pay slip in the plaintiff's name for the month of January 2021 - for 24 hours of work on Fridays and Saturdays. This slip was first attached to Mordechai's main witness affidavit (on September 24, 2024). On the slip it is written that it was executed by the defendant's CPA on August 23, 2023. Apart from the slip, the defendant did not prove that the consideration as stated in the slip was transferred to the plaintiff's account. Therefore, it is not possible to determine that the slip for the month of 1/2022 is an authentic document. Moreover, the defendant changed its version of the date on which it claimed that the plaintiff returned to work for the defendant - in the statement of claim and in the affidavit itself, it was noted that the plaintiff returned to work in April 2022, even though no slip was attached for the month of April 2022, but for the month of 1/2022 (the defendant, who apparently noticed this at the summary stage, claimed that the employment relationship ended in January 2022, paragraph 3 of the defendant's summaries).
- Since it has not been proven that the coupon for the month of January 2022 is authentic, and since it has not been proven that the defendant tried to contact the plaintiff after the end of the month in which he returned to work after serving his sentence, we have not been able to accept the defendant's version.
- Beyond what is required, it should be noted that even if we had accepted the defendant's version, the very fact that she did not deduct advance notice fees in real time indicates that she had waived the notice fee in conduct (as stated in the Labor Appeal (National) 71801-09-16 Freedom Geta - A.M.S.B. Services Ltd., paragraph 18 of the judgment (January 21, 2019)).
- Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, advance notice fees should not be deducted from the payments due to the plaintiff.
Travel Fees
- In the section summarizing all the components of the claim, the plaintiff stated that he is petitioning for payment of ILS 2,490 for travel expenses. However, in the absence of detail and reference to this in the body of the statement of claim and affidavit, there is no reason to grant the plaintiff relief in this regard.
Convalescence Pay
- As stated above, we have determined that the plaintiff's version, according to which the entry in the pay slips reflects only the multiplication of the hours he worked with the hourly wage claimed by him, is incorrect, and therefore his argument that the payment on the pay slips for convalescence pay should not be taken into account is liable to be rejected. However, contrary to the defendant's claim, there are differences in payment, and we will elaborate.
- For the period from 9/2020 to 15.11.2021 (full-time), the plaintiff was entitled to 8.45 convalescence days (= 7 days * 14.5/12 months) * ILS 423 per day = ILS 3,577. In practice, he was paid in the pay slips for the aforementioned period - ILS 3,562. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a difference of ILS 87.
Redemption of annual leave
- The plaintiff petitions for payment of vacation redemption on the grounds that during the period of employment he did not take paid leave and at the end of the employment he was not paid vacation, based on the following calculation - 17 days * 8 hours * ILS 35 = ILS 4,760.
- On the other hand, the defendant claims that it paid the plaintiff the sum of ILS 3,413 during the period of employment for this component and that there are no differences in payment.
- After reviewing the arguments, evidence and testimonies, we have reached the conclusion that the lawsuit in respect of this component should be accepted in
- The Annual Leave Law establishes a beneficial arrangement for the payment of vacation pay in contrast to the provisions of Section 15 of the Cleaning Industry Expansion Order regarding the number of vacation days to which an employee is entitled, and it grants each employee 16 days of annual leave (including Saturdays) or 14 vacation days (not including Saturdays).
- Since the plaintiff worked for a year and two and a half months, his entitlement must be calculated according to section 3(c) of the Annual Leave Law, taking into account his seniority and the actual number of working days, as detailed below:
For the months of 9/2020 - 12/2020 (inclusive) in which the plaintiff actually worked for 95 days, he is entitled to redemption of 95/240 * 14 vacation days = 5.54 days, and minus partial days - 5 vacation days.