The Honorable Judge Tzadik: Would you submit for approval and receive it?
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: Yes.
The Honorable Judge Tzadik: Do you have any documentation of this?
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: I have excel tables, we didn't submit them, but I have excel tables for this subject, yes. All the tables, all the commissions of the employees is something I would calculate for myself.
Adv. Brotfeld: And all the employees?
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: All the employees, all the salespeople, of course, were not a clerk."
(p. 46 of the transcript of May 12, 2024, paras. 6-15).
- A review of my father's claims in the Maalot case that they lack any evidentiary support. Although his testimony indicates that he holds real-time reports regarding the fees and bonuses payments that he himself made, he chose not to submit them to the court for review as part of the proceeding.
- The data detailed in the Excel reports, which were prepared and calculated by Avi himself, could have been used to prove his claim that the payments in dispute that were part of his salary were not paid in full. Since the full information is in his possession, but has not been presented to the court, my father refrained from bringing the evidence that would have proved his claim in respect of this component, and therefore the claim for payment of the difference in his labor and bonus should be dismissed.
Fictitious pay slips
- A well-known case law is that: "A fictitious slip is a slip that does not reflect the total consideration actually paid, or the distribution of its components is artificial, does not conform to the consent of the parties, and is intended to evade the payment of social benefits" (see Labor Appeal (National) 20880-07-20 Tesfaselase Desale Zerezgi - Kaplan & Levy Ltd., (given on June 20, 2022)). It was also held that not every case in which an impropriety arises in the pay slip should be viewed as indicating that the entire pay slip is fictitious, and the claim, which is based on a factual claim, must be examined in accordance with the legislation regulating the certainty and clarity of the terms of employment, while examining the Wage Protection Law and the Notice to Employee Law (see Labor Appeal 34111-07-15 Gennady Ukrainsky - Chess and Logistics in a Tax Appeal (November 9, 2019)).
- There is no dispute that the plaintiff was given the employment agreement and the plaintiff did not deny that it was an agreement signed between the parties. We would also like to emphasize that there is no mention in the employment agreement for the distribution of the various bonuses (with the exception of clause 20 of the agreement, which defines bonuses in general, and the appendix includes only a reference to a bonus of 0.8% of the company's sales turnover), which appear in the pay slips, so that it cannot be concluded that the various bonuses correspond to the content of the employment agreement. It is indeed a matter of impropriety of the slip, but it is not a matter of clarity that does not reflect the payments that were actually paid. The component that was actually paid for commissions is mentioned in the pay slip in a way that reflects the payment that was paid, although it was not defined as a wage that requires pension deposits for it, and therefore, we did not find that the discrepancy between the employment agreement and the registration in the pay slip indicates fictitious pay slips as claimed by the plaintiffs, and therefore, the claim in respect of this component is dismissed.
Vacation
- According to the counter-plaintiffs, the balance of Avi's vacation days is ILS 21.67 and in accordance with his average salary in the last three months of his employment, he is entitled to a total payment of ILS 21,090 for this component. The counter-defendants deny the counter-plaintiffs' claims, without further detail and without a counter-calculation being filed on their behalf.
- In view of our determination that it has been proven that the sales commissions and bonuses were part of the plaintiff's salary, we accept the plaintiff's calculations in respect of this component and which were not contradicted by the counter-defendants. Accordingly, the counter-defendant must pay Avi a sum of ILS 21,090 for this component, as he was sued in the counterclaim.
Convalescence
- According to the counter-plaintiffs, an examination of my father's pay slips shows that he was not paid for up to 4.5 days of convalescence in the sum of ILS 1,701. On the other hand, the counter-defendants deny the counter-plaintiffs' claims, without further elaboration. In the summaries of the counter-plaintiffs, it was noted that A.T. did not submit a document that the payments listed in the last pay slip were transferred to it.
- In accordance with the subscription in the amended statement of claim, A.T. did not transfer to my father the payments for the convalescence days listed in the pay slip for the month of 7/21. As noted above, A.T.'s request in its amended claim to deduct these payments from the last wage was denied, therefore, it is understood that the counter-defendant must pay Avi the sum claimed in respect of this component , and therefore, she will pay Avi the sum of ILS 1,701 for convalescence pay.
Lack of Confirmation Regarding the Employment Period
- Avi petitions for compensation in the amount of ILS 2,500 in light of his claim that he did not receive confirmation regarding the period of his employment.
- Section 8(a) The Advance Notice of Dismissal and Resignation Law, 5761-2001, states that "an employer shall give his employee, at the end of employment, written confirmation of the beginning and termination of an employment relationship."
- Section 8(b) determines that the breach of the said duty constitutes a criminal offense punishable by a fine. The counter-plaintiffs did not point to a normative source that gives the court the authority to award monetary compensation in a civil proceeding for a breach of this duty, as opposed to the criminal sanction set forth in section 8 Moreover, my father did not even point to the damage caused to him as a result of not granting the approval from here, the lawsuit in respect of this component, should be dismissed.
Payment for overtime work