Q: So why did you get paid?
A: Wasn't I working remotely at the time? I was actually working remotely..." (p. 7, paras. 18-35).
- In this context, Udi testified in his cross-examination, when he was asked about the pay slip relevant to the period in which the plaintiff was abroad, and he replied, "I need to see the paycheck. There are days when she was asked to work abroad if necessary. She has an iPad that in case she can work from abroad" (p. 11, paras. 1-2), and in response to the question of why vacation days were not deducted, he replied, "Show me a slip about which you claim" (p. 11, paras. 8-9). He was also asked whether there were any records or proof that she worked at that time, and he replied, "Abroad? No. Proof? No" (p. 11, paras. 5-6). Later in his cross-examination, Udi was asked:
Q: But do you remember working abroad?
A: Yes, when I submitted it and checked, yes. If there is a slip and working hours, yes.
Q: What purpose did you go abroad?
A: Not you, she went out.
Q: For what purpose?
A: I need to check" (p. 12, 2-7).
- I am under the impression that the plaintiff's version in this matter is incoherent and unconvincing. The plaintiff did not clarify whether she flew abroad for the purpose of work, or whether she was available to perform her work as needed. Even if the plaintiff was referring to the second option, it is unreasonable to assume that this was work that extended over all the days of travel, to the extent that vacation days were not deducted at all. In any event, the plaintiff did not present any evidence that she worked during her stay abroad. Therefore, it appears that the pay slips, at least in relation to the months of June and July 2024, reflect a certain degree of inaccuracy with respect to the scope of her work.
- Fourth, as is well known, due to family closeness, "naturally, there will not always be great attention to all the features that characterize the relationship between an employee and an employer according to the tests that have developed from time to time in case law (and were mentioned in the Kuta case), including those relating to the scope of the employer's control, supervision or control over the employee's work and the manner in which it is performed, control and control, which can and will be more limited and flexible when it comes to relations between relatives"; but at the same time, There must be a "substantial core" of the engagement, "which entails an indisputable condition, regarding the payment of wages in exchange for the performance of work and in the manner derived therefrom", i.e., that the consideration paid is not rooted in "the needs of the family and/or its individuals and the consideration of the 'external' considerations" (National Insurance Institute (National) 59047-10-13 Rachel Madlasi - The National Insurance Institute (January 20, 2015) (hereinafter - the Madlasi case); National Insurance Institute (National) 1147/01 Mustafa Kamal - National Insurance Institute (December 2, 2003)).
- Admittedly, the inaccuracy in the pay slips in connection with her travel abroad should be attributed to her. However, I found that in the plaintiff's case there is a 'substantial core' of payment of wages in exchange for the performance of work, and in the manner derived from it. And this is the main thing, even if the plaintiff's salary was higher than Udi's, this does not testify that she performed her work as a freelancer and there is no employment relationship between them.
- As part of the defendant's exhibits file, the institution attached the plaintiff's income report for the years 2021-2025. According to the report, in 2025 (January and May-August) the plaintiff's income was ILS 54, 412; and in 2024 (April-December) it was ILS 107, 565. In addition, Udi's income report was attached to the defendant's exhibits file, according to which in 2024 his income as a self-employed person was ILS 47, 226.
- In his message to the defendant's investigator, Udi was asked, "Looking at your reported income, it seems that Sandy's salary is higher than yours. How is it possible that an employee earns more than the owner?" and replied that "in the field of case law, the fees are paid by the client only at the end of the process, for the most part. My salary depends on the business activity, if I closed a lot of cases that month, then my salary will be high. As far as Sandy is concerned, it doesn't matter, she receives it for the time being" (paras. 191-195).
- The plaintiff was asked about the gaps between her salary and Udi's earnings in her cross-examination:
Q: From April 2024 until the end of 2024 you receive 107, 000 ILS. And your husband receives all year round. Less than half. Have you ever seen a law firm that hired makes more money than the owner?