Thus, I am not persuaded that the parties saw the relationship between them as establishing an employee-employer relationship. Similarly, there is no dispute that the relationship between the parties was not presented as an employment relationship towards any external party. It can be assumed that the plaintiff, who works full-time elsewhere, is aware of the obligations imposed on the employer, inter alia, regarding the obligation to report to the tax authorities and the National Insurance Institute. Therefore, if he genuinely believed that he and the group had developed an employment relationship, he should have acted to arrange the reporting on them to third parties as well, and this was not done.
- Form of payment of salary: The parties before us agree that until the opening of the season on September 1, 2009, the plaintiff was not supposed to receive any consideration for his activity in the team (p. 7, lines 8-12). The parties dealt extensively with the question of whether after this date the plaintiff was expected to receive salary from the group and, if so, at what rate. According to the plaintiff, he expected to receive a salary of ILS 1,000-2,000 per month. Hapoel Katamon, for its part, argued that if the plaintiff had received any consideration, it would have been ILS 700 at most for reimbursement of expenses. In his summary, the plaintiff argued that since there is no dispute that he was expected to receive any compensation from his activity in the group, this supports the fact that the existence of an employment relationship between the parties should be recognized. I am unable to accept the plaintiff's arguments. Here, too, the plaintiff's arguments were not supported by a difference of evidence, and they did not go beyond the scope of conjecture, and therefore they do not contribute to the discussion of our case. I will add that even if the plaintiff had proved that Hapoel Katamon undertook to pay him ILS 700 for reimbursement of expenses, this alone would not have made the plaintiff its employee.
- Finally - on the basis of all of the above, the plaintiff's claim for recognition of the accident of August 27, 2009 as a work accident is rejected. When the claim is rejected, the notice to the third party is also rejected, since the vitality of the notice to the third party stems from the provisions of section 369 of the Law, which deal with the failure of an employer to register, or the failure to pay insurance contributions for an employee on time, matters that do not exist in the case before us.
This is a procedure in the field of social security, and therefore, as is customary, there is no order for costs.
- Right of appeal: to the National Labor Court within 30 days of the date the judgment is served on the parties.
It was given today, 24 Sivan 5774, (June 22, 2014), in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.