Mahri: Well.
Coral: 7,300,
Mehri: 600 is missing, if 200 is missing,
Here are 7,300,
Mahri: I'm missing 600.
Almog: Wait, 7,300?I brought you 400 shekels now, I brought you five now.
Mehri: Okay, I'm missing 600.
Almog: I brought it to you, so 620 is missing.
Mahri: Yes.
Mordechai: 600.
Almog: I'll bring it to you. I don't have a mouth on me now."
This means that in this conversation the plaintiff confirmed that he had received ILS 7,300 into the bank account and that he had received an additional ILS 400 in cash at the time of the conversation and that he should receive another ILS 600 in cash that he had been promised to receive the next day. The fact that the plaintiff received payment in cash also arises from the transcription of additional conversations between Mehri and Mordechai and Almog (as stated in Appendices B and D to Mehri's affidavit, as well as photographs showing Mehri counting cash in the defendant's office - Appendix E to his affidavit).
- When Mordechai was confronted with the transcript of the conversation that was attached as Appendix C to the plaintiff's affidavit, regarding the transfer of funds that are not documented in the slip, he noted that "it could be that he received something for the last month, it could be that he received it, I don't know, you seem to bring me recordings from many years ago, but it could be that he got it, I don't know, he received some bonus for the work, He received something" (p. 50 of the transcript of September 30, 2024, S. and Mordechai's testimony at p. 41, paras. 10-13 of Peru. 33-36). To teach us that cash money was indeed transferred to the plaintiff, for which there is no documentation. It should also be clarified that there is no indication of the payment of a bonus to Mehri.
- Moreover, there is also no pay slip that is consistent with the aforementioned amounts (assuming that the pay slip was issued for the sum of ILS 7,300 that was transferred by bank transfer and that the additional sum - ILS 1,000 - was paid as a salary difference in another month or as a bonus). In the summaries on its behalf, the defendant confirms that there is no slip in the sum of ILS 7,300. According to her, it is not clear whether the payment in cash, according to the plaintiff, was in excess of the slip or part of what was specified in the slip, and that it is possible that in retrospect the plaintiff remembered that he was missing hours, and therefore he was paid ILS 7,900 in a slip that was issued after receiving the full data of the hours from the employees. However, the defendant did not refer to such a slip.
- When distributing the net salary paid to the plaintiff in the pay slips, the hourly rates claimed by the plaintiff are not received for the total hours as stated in the pay slips (ILS 40 for a regular hour and ILS 46 for a Saturday hour). However, as stated, the plaintiff proved that he received additional sums in cash. Moreover, as will be detailed below, the recording of the hours in the pay slips was also not found to be accurate (for example, the division of hours - regular, additional hours worth 125% or 150% or Saturday hours does not correspond to the actual hours reported in the attendance report and the pay slip), therefore, contrary to the defendant's claim, the fact that at the time of the distribution of the net salary paid to the plaintiff in the total hours pay slips, the hourly rates of the base wage claimed by the plaintiff are not received - does not negate the plaintiff's claim.
- In addition to the above, an examination of the pay slips shows that there is no correspondence between the rates that must be deposited in accordance with the Expansion Order in the cleaning industry for compensation and pension and the payments reported in the pay slips. For example, in August 2021, ILS 1,350 was paid in a slip for compensation and pension, while according to the expansion order in the cleaning industry, ILS 1,041.48 should have been paid for the aforesaid; In the month of January 2022, compensation and pension in the sum of ILS 1,675 was paid in a slip, whereas according to the expansion order in the cleaning industry, ILS 1,045.29 should have been paid for the aforesaid, etc. When Mordechai was asked about the meaning of the discrepancies, he raised the hypothesis that the overpayment stemmed from a "retro payment" for months in which the plaintiff did not receive compensation and benefits (Mordechai's testimony at p. 48, paras. 3-10 of Peru). Indeed, an examination of the pay slips shows that the defendant reported in the pay slips payments in lieu of pension deposits (the compensation and provident component only) as of August 2021, even though he soon began working for the defendant in September 2020. However, the defendant did not present a calculation that attests to its claim that the overpayment was intended to cover the difference as aforesaid.
- In addition, in the months of August 2021 and September 2021, the pay slips show that the plaintiff was paid a minimum wage of ILS 31.5 per hour under ILS 29.12. The defendant did not address this and did not provide an explanation for it.
- In view of the aforesaid, our conclusion is that even if the burden of proof was on the plaintiff's shoulders (given notice to the employee), he lifted the burden imposed to contradict the subscriber in the wage agreement signed with him as well as the registration in the pay slips. Accordingly, we accept his version, according to which for a regular hour he was paid an hourly wage of ILS 40 and for an hour on Shabbat he was paid an hourly wage of ILS 46.
- Without derogating from the above, it should be noted that we are aware of what was stated in the plaintiff's 'testimony sheet' to the Directorate of Regulation and Enforcement of the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services, which was attached to the defendant's affidavit (see Appendix N/6), where the plaintiff replied to the investigator that the registration in the pay slips was correct and that he earned ILS 29.12 per hour (and on Saturdays he received more, S. 8 on page 2 of the sheet, Appendix N6 to the defendant's affidavit) and that in his testimony in court he testified that was not true when he denied what he said to the supervisor despite clear written statements.The plaintiff's testimony at p. 11, paras. 5-18 of Peru). However, it is not impossible that the plaintiff was afraid to report his actual hourly wage at the time of the interview with the supervisor due to the fact that this was not reflected in the pay slips. .In any event, in view of the explicit admission of the defendant's representative regarding the alleged hourly wage, in a conversation with the plaintiff and the rest of the evidence above, we have not found that this is sufficient to lead to the rejection of the plaintiff's claim regarding the amount of wages.
- In addition to the above, it should be noted that we did not accept the plaintiff's arguments that the manner in which the convalescence pay or the deposits to the study fund were made would attest to the fact that the slip was incorrect.
As to the convalescence pay - contrary to the plaintiff's claim, the calculation made by the defendant was lawful in accordance with what is stated in section 11E of the Expansion Order in the Cleaning Industry.