On behalf of the plaintiff and the counter-defendant, we heard the plaintiff's testimony.
On behalf of the defendant and the counter-plaintiff testified:
Mr. Eitan Crankors, controlling shareholder and manager of the defendant (hereinafter: Crankors);
Mr. Dan Chen, former co-owner of the Toy Box Store in Netanya;
Mr. Moshe Besserglik, the father of the owner and a member of the board of directors of the "Barefoot Brands" chain of stores (hereinafter: Besserglik);
Mr. Mordechai Banin, serves as a sales manager for the defendant.
On behalf of the counter-defendant, they testified:
Mr. Eyal Dov Hananovich, a sportswear agent;
Mr. Yoad Kidron, one of the managers of the counter-defendant (hereinafter: Kidron);
Decision
After hearing the testimonies, reviewing the documents submitted and examining the arguments of the parties, we came to the conclusion that the claim should be accepted in part and the counterclaim should be dismissed.
Failure to Notify the Employee
- The defendant did not give the plaintiff notice of the terms of his employment, in violation of the Notice to the Employee (Working Conditions) Law, 5762-2002. However, since the plaintiff began his work in 2010 and at the beginning of the plaintiff's period of employment with the defendant, the amendment to the Notice to Employee Law (Conditions of Work) 5762-2002 (August 11, 2011), which allows the court to award damages in a civil proceeding even if no damage was caused to the plaintiff, this component of the claim should be dismissed.
Convalescence Pay
- The plaintiff claims that the defendant did not pay him the full convalescence pay. The defendant claims that she paid convalescence pay on a regular basis, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to convalescence pay for the period of unpaid leave (March 2020 - November 2021). The defendant even claims to offset this debt against its damages.
- We accept the defendant's argument that the period of unpaid leave does not entitle to convalescence pay, unless otherwise agreed. The plaintiff did not prove that during the unpaid leave period he met the conditions of entitlement to convalescence pay. The defendant did not present sufficient evidence that she paid the full convalescence pay due to the plaintiff for the periods that are not the period of unpaid leave.
- We accept the claimant's calculations for the offset of the unpaid leave period (21 months). The defendant must pay the plaintiff convalescence pay differentials in the sum of ILS 3,717 .
Differences in pension deposits
- The plaintiff claims that the defendant did not contribute to the pension on various salary components (bonus, per diem, value compensation), and that there was a lack of a deposit for the month of October. The defendant claims that the bonus was a "premium" that is not included in the determining salary for social deposits.
- The plaintiff stated that the bonus was "fixed regardless of my work output" (plaintiff's affidavit, paragraph 12) and in his testimony he denied that the bonus was paid if they reached a sales target of ILS 200,000:
Adv. Kariv: You didn't get it. You didn't receive commission for everything, you didn't get it, you didn't receive sales commissions, that is, commission per sale that you made, right?