Mordechai: Without traveling, we said.
Almog: What did we say?
Mehri: No travel, why no travel?
Mordechai: Because what are you traveling, you come to live here.
Almog: Don't confuse the brain, everything - everything is fine, move,
Mordechai: You're crossing the road, you're at home"
If, as the defendant claims, the conversation revolved around the total cost, there was no need to mention the issue of payment for travel. Moreover, this statement contradicts what is stated in the pay slips, where it was stated that the plaintiff was paid for travel expenses.
In this context, it should be noted that the defendant is correct that the plaintiff claims in the statement of claim in a manner that contradicts his version that he received nothing but basic wages - when he admitted that payment was paid for travel (except for travel on Shabbat, see the defendant's reference in paragraph 160 to the summaries on her behalf and what is stated in paragraph 36 of the statement of claim). However, there is no reference to this in his affidavit (where he only stated that he was not paid for travel, paragraph 6F of the plaintiff's affidavit), and in any event, this conversation implies that the travel expenses were paid in addition to the basic salary.
- Moreover, the defendant's version in Mordechai's affidavit that the plaintiff's salary, as stated in the pay slips, was paid by bank transfer, and in very few cases was paid to any of the employees by check, and that Mordechai remembers only one time that he paid Mahri in cash, was refuted. As can be seen from the transcripts attached by the plaintiff, he received part of the salary by bank transfer and part in cash, if only for part of the relevant period. In that conversation (Appendix C to Mehri's affidavit - pp. 4-5 of the conversation) it was stated as follows:
"Almog: How much money did you receive in the account?
Mordechai: 7,300 ILS.
Mehri: 7,300 ₪
Coral: 7,300,
Mahri: Yes.
Almog: Or 7,350?
Mahri: No-50, 7,300.
Almog: 7,300, right?