Mahri: ... Okay,
Mordechai: Not at all, did you work 100 hours?
Mehri: Oh,
Mordechai: You worked 100 hours multiplied by 40, right?
Hurry: Ahhhhh
Mordechai: 4,000 ILS.
Mahri: What is it?
Mordechai: Wait, second,
Mehri: 280 You shall do,
Mordechai: Multiplied by 48, multiplied by 46, it's Shabbat.
Mahri: Okay.
Mordechai: Okay?
Mehri: Okay.
Almog: [Laughs] 208 times 40,
Mehri: Mmm-,
Almog: 8,320 NIS" (emphasis added)
Similar statements were made in further conversations between Mehri and Almog, in which Almog confirmed that the plaintiff received ILS 40 per hour and on Saturday he received more - ILS 46 per hour (as stated in Appendices D and F to Mehri's affidavit).
- In his testimony, Mordechai argued that the sum of ILS 40 per hour does not represent the hourly basic wage, but rather a "comprehensive" calculation that embodies the minimum wage (as it appears in the slip) together with the accompanying social rights (p. 52 of the minutes of September 30, 2024, paras. 19-24). In other words, according to him, in the conversation with Mehri he used to state the total cost of an hour of work, and not the basic wage. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, we have not been presented with any evidence or indication to support this claim.
- No data or documents were presented indicating that the sum of ILS 40 (or ILS 46 on Shabbat) constitutes a calculation that includes the minimum wage and the accompanying social benefits. Thus, for example, the defendant did not specify which rights, including the difference in the sum of approximately ILS 11 (= ILS 29.12 - ILS 40). In relation to Shabbat hours, the basic wage alone is supposed to be ILS 43.5 (= ILS 29.12 * 150%). Thus, prima facie, according to the defendant's version, the difference of ILS 2.5 (= ILS 43.5 - ILS 46), which constitutes only 5.7% of the basic salary on Shabbat (5.74% = ILS 43.5 / ILS 2.5), is supposed to reflect the rest of the accompanying rights, a small sum that does not cover all the accompanying rights (such as: convalescence, travel, etc.).
- Not only was it not clarified how the aforesaid sums (ILS 40 and ILS 46) reflected the overall calculation of the minimum wage together with the accompanying social rights (as the defendant claimed), but even in the conversation itself there is no statement that such amounts attest to the total cost of work hours (as the defendant claims) and not only the basic wage (as the plaintiff claims).
- On the contrary, in the same conversation, the plaintiff was told by Mordechai that he was not entitled to travel allowance because of his proximity to the place of work (p. 3, paras. 21-28 of the conversation paragraph, Appendix C to the plaintiff's affidavit):
"Almog: What did we say in the ministry?