3,577 ILS (convalescence pay to which he was entitled) * 7.5% = 268 ILS.
Antitrust - 6,032 ILS.
- In practice, the plaintiff was paid the sum of ILS 6,535 in the pay slips during the aforesaid period in respect of this component. In other words, the defendant paid the plaintiff the full payment for this (and even more).
- Therefore, the claim for this component is dismissed.
Replace Deposits for Compensation and Rewards
- The plaintiff petitions for compensation under the expansion order in the cleaning industry in the amount of ILS 12,254 for the compensation component and ILS 11,570 for the compensation component. Alternatively, the plaintiff petitions for payment of the deposits in respect of the deposit of infiltrators (16%) in the sum of ILS 14,851. The plaintiff claims that the payments made by means of pay slips in lieu of benefits and compensation are unlawful in view of the provision of section 28 of the Severance Pay Law and the provisions of the Foreign Workers Deposit Law, when there was no constraint to make the deposits.
- On the other hand, the defendant claimed that she had no choice but to proceed with the approximate execution and pay it as part of the pay slip, therefore, according to her, the amount paid to him as part of the pay slip should be reduced to ILS 6,078 from the amount to which he was entitled in lieu of an infiltrators' deposit - ILS 12,654, so that there was a difference to be paid in the sum of ILS 6,576. The defendant argued that the advance notice fee that was not given by the plaintiff should be deducted from this sum (in the sum of ILS 3,727), so that all that remains to be paid is the sum of ILS 2,848. The defendant further claimed that her counsel offered the plaintiff's attorney the sum, but the offer was rejected. Therefore, she attached to the affidavit a pay slip and a check for the difference as aforesaid. 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
- As stated above, the defendant's arguments regarding the reasons for not making the deposits for the infiltrators' deposit (preventing confusion between foreign workers who entered Israel legally and infiltrators at the time of payment, the absence of a valid visa at all times for any of the workers) 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 an infiltrators' deposit during the period of his employment (and in any case the defendant should have ensured that the plaintiff had a valid visa).
- However, since the plaintiff finished working for the defendant several years ago and it was not clarified before us whether it is possible to deposit retroactively for an infiltrator deposit 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 view of our determination that the pay slips are reliable, including the registration regarding payment in lieu of compensation and benefits, the plaintiff is entitled to payment according to the expansion order in the cleaning industry in accordance with the calculation as follows:
Compensation component -