| The Magistrate’s Court in Rishon Lezion |
| Civil Case 42165-05-22 Buildings Management, Cleaning and Maintenance in a Tax Appeal vs. Luxury Geriatric Services in a Tax Appeal et al.
Exterior Case: |
| Before | The Honorable Judge Liat Yaron
|
|
|
Plaintiff |
Buildings Management, Cleaning and Maintenance inTax Appeal |
|
|
Against
|
||
| Defendants | 1. Keinan Services in a Tax Appeal (Judgment Given in the Absence of a Defense)
2. Uri Weisbord 3. David Ben Shalom (judgment given in the absence of defense) |
|
Judgment
Whether defendant 2 should be obligated to pay the plaintiff a debt in respect of manpower services provided by it, by virtue of the grounds of lifting the veil, breach of contract, and conduct in bad faith and fraud, is the question that requires a decision in this lawsuit.
Undisputed Facts and Proceedings Prior to the Judgment
- On April 10, 2018, an "Agreement for the Provision of Manpower Services" was signed between the plaintiff, a manpower company called "Buildings, Management, Cleaning and Maintenance Ltd.", and the "Luxury Geriatric Services Ltd." (hereinafter: "Luxury"), which operated a nursing home in a property it rented in Moshava Yavne'el (hereinafter: "the Agreement" - attached as Appendix B to the statement of claim).
- The agreement stipulated, inter alia, that the plaintiff would provide the plaintiff with manpower "for the purpose of performing cleaning services", that the wages of the plaintiff's employees, and the conditions accompanying their employment, would be determined by the plaintiff, that Prestige would "record the working days and hours of the employees (through the website's attendance system) the time of the start of work and the time of the end of work on each of the working days", and that Prestige would transfer to the plaintiff by the 5th day of each month. A list, in which it shall specify "the name of each employee, the number of days worked in the previous month, and the hours of his work (separating between regular and overtime hours and employment in shifts)" (sections 1.a. - 1.c. to the agreement).
It was also agreed that the plaintiff would produce pay slips to the employees provided by it in accordance with the reports received from the prestige, and pay their wages, that in return Prestige would pay the plaintiff the sum of ILS 38.5 plus a tax appeal as required by law for an employee's work hour, and that for additional hours of work she would be charged an additional fee according to the law (sections 6.a. and 6.b. of the Agreement).