The parties' arguments
- According to the plaintiff, an examination of the nature of the relationship that was forged between him and Hapoel Katamon, in light of the social purpose of the National Insurance Law, leads to the conclusion that he should be recognized as an employee of the group and that the accident of August 27, 2009 should be recognized as a work accident. This is even if Hapoel Katamon's factual version is accepted, and even more so if his factual version is accepted. What is this supposed to mean?
According to the plaintiff, there is no dispute that he was injured during an official training match of the team, while wearing the team's uniform, and that his presence in it was required as part of his activities in the team. The plaintiff, like the other players, were under the authority of the team's coach and received all the equipment for the activity from the team. It was also clarified that even according to Hapoel Katamon's position at the time of the injury, i.e., before the start of the season, it was already clear that the plaintiff would be appointed to the team's roster of players and would receive payment for his activities. Although the rate of payment and its name is the subject of a factual dispute between the plaintiff and Hapoel Katamon, according to the plaintiff, there is no dispute that he was expected to receive at least ILS 700 per month for his activity in the group. In addition, the personal relationship test is held after the plaintiff has successfully passed the screening period and has been admitted to the group based on his personal skills. The plaintiff did not have an independent business and was integrated into the regular activity of the group. All of these indicate, according to the plaintiff, the existence of an employee-employer relationship between him and Hapoel Katamon. According to the plaintiff, not much significance should be attributed to the question of payment and the manner of its payment, since in case law this test is only an auxiliary test. In any event, and in the examination of more than necessary, the plaintiff claimed that Hapoel Katamon had promised him, and at least created a representation against him according to which in return for his activity in the group he would be paid a monthly salary of ILS 1,000-2,000, which would be documented in a pay slip that would include mandatory deductions, and not only pay him ILS 700 for reimbursement of expenses, as it claimed in this proceeding.