For the months 1/2022 - 10.6.2022, in which the plaintiff actually worked for 126 days, he is entitled to redemption of 126/240 * 14 vacation days = 7.35 vacation days, and minus the fractions of days - 7 vacation days.
Business restrictions - 19 days of vacation.
- Since the plaintiff worked full-time and beyond that, the plaintiff is entitled to vacation pay in the sum of ILS 232.96 per day (= 8 hours * ILS 29.12 per hour), and multiplied by vacation days - 19 days, he is entitled to vacation redemption in the sum of ILS 4,426.24.
- In the month of April 2022, the plaintiff was paid vacation pay in the sum of ILS 932. It can be seen from the attendance report that the plaintiff was on vacation that month, and therefore it is not a matter of redemption of vacation days in money, contrary to the plaintiff's claim.
- When we rejected the defendant's claim regarding the deduction of advance notice fees, there was a difference to be paid in the sum of ILS 3,494.24.
Holiday Allowance
- In the statement of claim, the plaintiff petitioned for payment for 8 holiday days at a rate of holiday pay (100%) (in the sum of ILS 2,368). The plaintiff claimed that the registration in the pay slips regarding payment for holiday pay was fictitious and therefore he was entitled to receive this remedy, and attached as an appendix to the statement of claim a table detailing the days of the holiday in the relevant period. The defendant denied the very entitlement to this payment.
- As will be detailed below, the claim should be accepted in part.
- The plaintiff was not entitled to holiday pay for the first three months of his employment, i.e., before July 1, 2021. In 2021, the High Holidays took place in September 2021, as detailed below:
| Rosh Hashanah | Kippur | Sukkot | Sukkot (Simchat Torah) | |
| Slave | 7.9 + 8.9 | 28.9 | ||
| Didn't work | 16.9 | 21.9 |
- On holidays in which the plaintiff worked, he was entitled to holiday work (150%) as well as holiday pay (100%). In practice, the defendant paid only consideration for the work itself, but not for holiday pay (the pay slips did not mention payment for this at all). Therefore, in 2021, the plaintiff was entitled to holiday payment for 5 holiday days in the sum of ILS 1,164.8 (= 5 days * 8 hours * ILS 29.12 per hour * 100%).
- For the period from 1/2022 - 10.6.2022:
| Passover | Passover | Independence | Shavuot | |
| Slave | 5.5 | |||
| Didn't work | 16.4 (Sat) | 22.4 | 5.6 |
Therefore, in 2022, the plaintiff is entitled to holiday pay for 3 days - ILS 699 = (3 days * 8 hours * ILS 29.12 * 100%).
- Hence, the plaintiff was entitled for the period of his employment to payment for holiday pay for which he was not paid, in respect of which he was paid, a total of ILS 1,863.8.
Substitute for Deposits to the Study Fund
- The plaintiff claims that the defendant did not pay for the study fund according to the hourly wage as it was, and therefore she must compensate him with differences in the sum of ILS 7,828. On the other hand, the defendant claims that it paid the plaintiff the full payments due to him according to the minimum wage.
- As stated above, we have determined that the registration in the pay slips reflects the plaintiff's salary. As stated in section 10 of the Expansion Order in the cleaning industry, the plaintiff was entitled to deposits of 7.5% of the salary as well as the convalescence pay.
- Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to a change of study fund according to the following calculation:
3,536 ILS (convalescence pay to which he was entitled) * 7.5% = 265.2 ILS.