In this context, the workers add that their consent to the working conditions could not be relied upon, especially in light of the Regional Court's ruling regarding the failure to receive the notice from Misgav at the beginning of their employment. Even if it is determined that they were aware of the terms of their employment, it is difficult to attribute to them a conscious and informed consent given the fact that they did not sign the employment agreements and in view of the power differences between the parties.
Another claim of the employees is that from the date the KISS rule came into effect on January 1, 2019, until August 31, 2019, Segev refrained from applying the KISS rule to the employees' employment conditions in violation of the law.
- Fundamental arguments regarding the conditions of employment that applied to the employees as of September 2019 and the correct interpretation of the Case Rule, the application of the deviant stipulation, and the validity of the employees' agreement to the new employment agreement:
According to the workers, the Regional Court erred in its determination that the Kiss Rule applies a change in the legal status only to a change in the salary base for calculating social benefits. According to them, the KISS rule also entails implications derived from the main determination, including the default use of the gratuity funds and the possibility of setting a deviant stipulation to do so, subject to the consent of the employees.
The workers further argued that the employees' agreement to use the gratuity money when they began their employment at Segev cannot constitute a basis for their consent to use the gratuity money after the Kiss rule came into effect, in light of the fact that this is a new employment agreement and a different legal situation. Therefore, this should not be seen as a basis for the validity of a deviant stipulation permitting the use of the gratuity funds in accordance with the Case Rule.
In this context, the workers further claimed that the Regional Court erred in determining that Segev was not required to have the employees sign the new employment agreement but could have made do with giving notice, and that the fact that the employees continued their work at Segev and filed financial claims instead of taking organizational steps attests to their consent to the behavior.