Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv) 44232-09-22 Woldemariam Mahari – Glossy Cleaning M.B. Clean Ltd. - part 46

In relation to the month of 5/2022 - there are two reports - one electronic and the other manual.  The pay slip shows the same number of hours as stated in the manual report and is higher than the number of hours in the electronic report - a gap that apparently stemmed from a signing problem by the plaintiff (the manual report shows that the plaintiff worked in the first week of the month, even though this is not reported in the electronic report).  The plaintiff was not deprived of this month when he received payment for a higher number of hours than he reported in the electronic report.

432. In his testimony, the plaintiff confirmed that there were cases in which he did not sign while he was in the yeshiva but was not deprived of payment. As stated in his testimony: "If we forget to activate the application in the same place, we activate it in another place and we are considered 8 hours" (  7, paras.  24-25 of Pro.  of February 12, 2024.  ) i.e., he confirmed that the defendant would have thought that the plaintiff had worked a full day even though he did not report when he left the meeting.
433. In his affidavit, the plaintiff stated that the total hours that appear on the pay slips are correct (paragraph 7H of Ayoub's affidavit). In his testimony in court, the plaintiff also reiterated that the recording of the total hours on the pay slips is correct.  At first, he claimed with regard to the month of January 22, in which it was stated that he had worked 120 hours, that he had never worked such a large number of hours.  However, when the defendant presented him with a sick certificate for that month, he confirmed that he had not worked for the entire month (the pay slip indicates that he had been paid sick pay, see the plaintiff's testimony at p.  5, paras.  14-34 of February 12, 2024).
434. His testimony that hours were regularly deducted from the pay slip is inconsistent with his statement that the total hours recorded on the pay slip are correct, and that in the event that he had not signed the application from his place of work, then his workday would have been considered a full work day (see his testimony at p. 7, para.  7 of February 12, 2024, as opposed to what is stated in paragraph 7H of his affidavit).
435. From the above, it appears that the attendance reports are reliable and reflect the plaintiff's working hours.
436. Although we have reached the conclusion that the attendance reports are reliable and the pay slips are reliable, we found that there are errors in the classification of the plaintiff's working hours - regular and additional hours (on weekdays, Saturdays and holidays), while the defendant sometimes counted some of the overtime hours as regular or incomplete hours according to the correct value of the hour. As detailed in the tables below, the correct classification of the plaintiff's working hours is as follows: