Salary, vacation, holidays and convalescence pay (8.33%) (the calculation is based on the amounts to which the plaintiff was entitled to receive payment according to the calculations detailed in this judgment for each and every component) -
(ILS 3,577 (convalescence) * 8.33%) + (ILS 4,426.24 (vacation) * 8.33%) + (ILS 1,747.14 (holidays) * 8.33%) + (ILS 75,930 (basic salary) * 8.33%) = ILS 7,137.
Overtime work and weekly rest (6%) (calculated according to the total regular hours as stated in the attendance reports (and not in the pay slips) multiplied by ILS 29.12 per hour) -
30,215 ₪ * 6% = 1,812.9 ₪.
Rewards component -
Salary, vacation, holidays and convalescence pay (7.5%) -
(ILS 3,577 (convalescence) * 7.5%) + (ILS 4,426.24 (vacation) * 7.5%) + (ILS 1,747.14 (holidays) * 7.5%) + (ILS 75,930 (basic salary) * 7.5%) = ILS 6,426.
Overtime work and weekly rest (7.5%) -
30,215 ₪ * 7.5% = 2,226.86 ₪.
Travel Fee (5%) -
3,284 ₪ * 5% = 164.2 ₪.
- Pursuant to the above, the plaintiff was entitled to the compensation component in the sum of ILS 8,816 minus the ILS 3,758 that was paid to him as aforesaid in the pay slips - ILS 5,058.2 difference to payment.
- Moreover, in accordance with the aforesaid, the plaintiff was entitled to the compensation component in the sum of ILS 8,949 minus ILS 2,320 that was paid to him as aforesaid in the pay slips - ILS 6,629 difference to payment.
- As stated above, there is no reason to deduct advance notice fees.
- Without derogating from the defendant's obligation to pay the plaintiff the sums as stated above, the plaintiff will return to the defendant the check in the sum of ILS 2,848, insofar as it has not been paid (see what is stated in paragraphs 136-137 of the defendant's summaries and p. 40 of the plaintiffs' summaries).
Compensation by virtue of the Notice to Employee Law
- The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to compensation in the sum of ILS 6,000 for failing to give notice of legal working conditions. The defendant claims that he is not entitled to compensation for this because upon his hiring he signed an agreement in his language after the terms were explained to him and he even received a copy.
- As detailed above, we have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff received notice to the employee and therefore the lawsuit for this purpose should be dismissed.
Compensation for Failure to Pay Pay Slips in Accordance with the Law
- The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to compensation in the sum of ILS 7,500 for the provision of pay slips that do not reflect the parties' agreements and are not knowingly reliable. On the other hand, the defendant argues that he should not be compensated for this because the pay slips reflect the plaintiff's salary and were given to him every month.
- Section 26a(b) of the Wages Protection Law states that where the employer did not knowingly provide his employee with a pay slip by the date prescribed by law, or where the pay slip does not contain the details of the salary paid to the employee, as required by section 24(b) of the law, in whole or in part, the court may award the employee compensation that is not dependent on the damage, for any paycheck. In the case law, it was determined that the compensation we are dealing with does not depend on proof of damage and is essentially of a deterrent nature (Labor Appeal 33680-08-10 Dizengoff Club in Tax Appeal - Zoili, November 16, 2011).
- The National Court addressed the question of when exemplary compensation should be awarded under Section 26A(b) of the Wage Protection Law in Labor Appeal (National) 3565-11-19 Hasharon Catering No. 1 (1993) in a Tax Appeal - Shani Klein (January 6, 2021), and held as follows:
"The tribunal may award exemplary compensation in one or more of the following alternatives: first, the employer did not knowingly deliver the pay slip on time, i.e., 'no later than the determining day'; Second, the pay slip is contrary to the provisions of section 24(a) of the Law, i.e., it did not include the details specified in the addendum to the Law; Third, the pay slip does not include "the details of the salary paid to the employee, in whole or in part, in contravention of the provisions of section 24B, i.e., where the employee was paid salary details listed in the addendum to the law, but this was not stated in the pay slip...".
- In the present case, as stated at length above, the plaintiff's pay slips were not fictitious and his salary was not artificially distributed as he claimed. We are aware that the pay slips did not always include the plaintiff's exact number of hours, and that additional errors were made in calculating the value of the hours, as well as the payments for social benefits, but we were not persuaded that this was done "knowingly", but rather that these were calculation errors. We have also not been persuaded that this is the appropriate case for a compensation award of a deterrent nature. Therefore, the claim in respect of this component is dismissed.
Habatum's lawsuit