For the months 1/2022 - 31.5.2022, in which the plaintiff actually worked for 110 days, he is entitled to a redemption of 110/240 * 14 vacation days = 6.416 vacation days, and minus partial days - 6 vacation days.
Antitrust - 13 days of vacation.
- Since the plaintiff worked full-time and beyond that, the plaintiff is entitled to vacation pay in the amount of ILS 232.96 per day (= 8 hours * ILS 29.12 per hour), and multiplied by vacation days - 13 days, he is entitled to vacation redemption in the sum of ILS 3,029.
- According to what was stated in the pay slips, he was paid a sum of ILS 2,330. Contrary to the plaintiff's claim, it can be seen from the attendance reports for months 1/22 and 4/22 that the plaintiff was on vacation that month, and therefore it is not a matter of redemption of vacation days in money under the actual granting of vacation.
- As a result, there is a difference to be paid in the sum of ILS 699.
Holiday Allowance
- In the statement of claim, the plaintiff petitioned for payment for 2 holiday days at a rate of holiday pay (100%) (in the sum of ILS 592). The plaintiff claimed that the registration in the pay slips was fictitious, and attached as an appendix to the statement of claim a table detailing the days of the holiday during 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 November 1, 2021, so in practice he was entitled to holiday pay only for the holidays during 2022. For the period from 1/2022 - 31.5.2022:
| Passover | Passover | Independence | |
| Slave | 5.5 | ||
| Didn't work | 16.4 (Sat) | 22.4 |
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to holiday pay in 2022 for 2 holiday days at a rate of 100% - ILS 466 = (2 * 8 hours * ILS 29.12 * 100%).
- It follows that the plaintiff was entitled for the period of employment to payment for holiday pay for which he was not paid a total of ILS 466.
Substitute for Deposits to the Study Fund
- The plaintiff claims that the defendant did not pay him a study fund according to the hourly wage as claimed by him, and therefore she must compensate him with differences in the sum of ILS 5,555.55. 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 Cleaning Industry Expansion Order, the plaintiff was entitled to deposits of 7.5% of his salary as well as the convalescence pay.
- Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to a change of study fund according to the following calculation:
ILS 2,467 (the convalescence allowance to which he was entitled) * 7.5% = ILS 185.