Employment Period
- The parties agree that Ayoub began working for the defendant in August 2021 and that he resigned from his job and gave advance notice. The dispute between the parties relates to the period of employment - whether the plaintiff finished working at the end of June 2022 or May 2022.
- In his testimony in court, the plaintiff testified contrary to the aforementioned that he did not work in June 2022 (p. 4, paras. 25-26 of the pro of February 12, 2024). The plaintiff also confirmed that the total hours recorded in the pay slip for the month of 5/22 reflect the total hours he worked (p. 5, paras. 14-16 of the pro of February 12, 2024).A review of the attendance report for the month of May 2022 shows that the plaintiff signed an attendance watch until May 31, 2022.
- The plaintiff also confirmed in his testimony that in June 2022, he was paid an additional sum that was transferred to his bank account, as stated in his testimony (p. 8, paras. 14-28 of February 12, 2024):
"Q. Why did you finish your work with Mordechai?
- My wife gave birth and I told them that in a month I would stop working and my wife wanted to start working every morning. A month ago, I told them. And I also brought them an employee and also taught him.
- When you finished your work, you were paid another 1,218 ILS in the month of 6/22 857 net?
- 850, or 880, I don't know.
- Is that money you received?
- They transferred it to my account.
- Why didn't you tell your lawyer that they transferred money to you?
- Maybe I didn't remember.
- In paragraph 13 of your affidavit, he refers to line 3 (quotes) "I have never gave... " ?
- I don't know, ask the lawyer.
- What did you not agree that Mordechai did to you, what did he do?
- Nothing did to me. He didn't give me what I deserved.
- Still, Mordechai paid you more than you deserve every month, according to you?
- Which one more? We were missing".
- Thus, the plaintiff resigned from his job at the defendant and received ILS 857 on account of his rights - as he confirmed in his testimony (see also the plaintiff's admission at p. 41 of the summaries on his behalf, where he noted that he received ILS 850 or ILS 880 as part of the final account of the account), which should be deducted from the sums to which he is entitled according to what is stated in this judgment.
Overtime pay
- The parties agree that the plaintiff worked six days a week, Sunday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., which is an 8-hour shift (except for the defendant's claim that sometimes the plaintiff worked less than this format as detailed in the pay slips).
- However, while the defendant claims that Ayoub's employment was in accordance with the law and that he was paid overtime in accordance with his entitlement and according to the minimum wage. The plaintiff claims that he was not paid at all for overtime and that he is entitled to overtime pay in the sum of ILS 3,938, calculated according to two additional hours on Friday worth 125% and three and a half hours of overtime on Friday worth 150% (after deducting an hour off on an 8-hour workday) according to the hourly rate claimed by him.
- As will be detailed below, the lawsuit in respect of this component is to be dismissed.
- As stated above, the plaintiff's employment format is agreed upon and it also emerges from the attendance reports (both manual and electronic) that were submitted to the file. These reports show that with the exception of a few cases in which he worked on a Saturday in September 2021, the plaintiff worked Sunday-Friday between 7:00 and 15:00 (sometimes the plaintiff left at an earlier hour or at a later time).
- The total hours reported on the pay slips also correspond to the total hours reported in the attendance reports, with the exception of the months of 9/2021 and 5/2022.
In relation to the month of September 2021 - the plaintiff received payment on that month's pay slip for a greater number of hours than the number of hours reported.