Caselaw

Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv) 13816-10-21 Itamar Savir – MHR1 Investment Management Ltd. - part 2

July 29, 2025
Print

For investment portions in an amount other than ILS 250,000, the bonus per employee will be received in proportion to the investor's investment portion.  (For example, if an investor transferred ILS 125,000, the employee will receive a bonus of ILS 2,000.  Andsoon).

...

5.3    The salary includes all salary components and increments Miscellaneous, including travel as a component self-employed, and the employee will not be entitled to any additional payment unless this is explicitly stated in the agreementThe.

5.4    It is declared and agreed that the salary, as defined in this Agreement, is a tribute to the consideration Its only and exclusive The employee is entitled by the company for his work for him, Except the benefits and other payments set forth in this Agreement.

5.5    From the salary and bonus/benefits and other payments specified in this Agreement, the Company will withhold tax payments and/or payments Other obligations, including income tax, social security, health insurance and/or any tax and/or any fees and/or fees that will apply to The employee by virtue of the provisions of this Agreement and/or by virtue of the provisions of any law...."

  1. The evidence showed that the defendant had retired to a pension and a study fund, from the base salary only.

In the statement of defense The defendant argued that the bonus component is a conditional supplement and therefore does not constitute wages.

The defendant retracted this argument in the summaries, since it clearly emerged that this was wages for all intents and purposes.  This is a bonus paid "from the first shekel" and a salary component that was included in the employment agreement under the heading "Consideration"".  It also appears that this is a significant sum paid every month, which is hundreds of percent higher than the base salary paid to the plaintiff.

  1. Since we are dealing with wages for all intents and purposes, the defendant should have contributed for it to a pension fund, up to the amount of the salary set out in the General Extension Order on the subject of mandatory pension - The average wage in the economy.
  2. The plaintiff attached to the summaries a table detailing the average wage in the economy in each of the months of work.

The defendant claimed that this was an incorrect calculation, but did not present a countercalculation.

Previous part12
3...11Next part