In addition, the defendant presented a clear representation of agreement to increase the rates as aforesaid when it submitted to the Israel Police annual requests to finance security expenses for the years 2014,2015 and 2016, while explicitly reporting the plaintiff's updated rates, in order to receive the police's participation at a rate of 64%.
- According to the plaintiff, she fulfilled her full obligations under the agreement, paid her employees the updated wages, reported lawfully to the tax authorities, and thus changed her situation for the worse based on the defendant's conduct.
- According to her, the defendant's refusal to transfer the money of the differences to her, while she enjoys both the service and the funding of the Israel Police that she received for him, constitutes unjust enrichment, a clear lack of good faith, and a breach of the duty of fairness imposed on a public authority.
The defendant's arguments
- The defendant argues that the extension order in the guarding and security industry applies only to the level of the employment relationship between the plaintiff as an employer and its employees, and does not impose any legal or contractual obligation on an external service customer.
The agreement stipulates an agreed tariff of ILS 35.46 per hour of work, and any unilateral demand by the plaintiff to update the tariff or to submit invoices at an increased rate does not constitute an agreement and is not binding on the defendant. The relationship between the parties is fully regulated in an agreement between them, which exhausts their mutual obligations, and the provisions of the extension order do not apply to the agreement.
- In addition, the defendant claims that it consistently and explicitly objected to the unilateral rates demanded by the plaintiff, as expressed in the treasurer's letters of December 21,2016 and December 11,2017, in which the plaintiff was required to produce credit invoices for the differences.
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The recording of the differences in the council's books under the heading "Viper Security of the Non-Payment Affair", which reflects its position, was done in parallel with this objection and for reasons of accounting conservatism only, and this should not be regarded as an agreement to the rates or an admission of debt.
- 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)The defendant denied the authenticity of the requests that the plaintiff claims were submitted to the police and claimed that they were forged documents.
- The defendant further claimed that her actual financial statements completely refuted the claim of enrichment. She did not receive any enrichment and even suffered losses due to the financing of the security services.
Discussion and Decision
- The parties agreed to render a judgment in the case without the need to hear witnesses, on the basis of all the documents submitted by the parties, after submitting pleadings.
- The main issue that needs to be decided is whether the extension order obligates the defendant to update the hourly rate agreed upon between the parties, or whether the extension order applies only to the level of employment relations and does not establish direct liability towards someone who is not the direct employer of the employees.
- Section 25 of the Collective Agreements Law, 5717-1957 (hereinafter: "the Law"), authorizes the Minister of Economy to expand in an order the provisions of a general collective agreement to employees and employers who are not a party to it. Subsequently, Section 30(a) of the Law states that the provisions of the collective agreement that were expanded in the order apply to the employees and employers to whom the order applies, and they must be viewed as part of the employment contract between them.
In other words, the extension order regulates and binds the employment relationship between the plaintiff and her employees.
- In the framework of the agreement between the parties, the defendant, being a local council, orders an external service in the field of security and does not employ in this industry. Therefore, the extension order in itself does not establish an automatic obligation on the defendant to update the contractual consideration agreed upon with the plaintiff, even if the wage costs of the plaintiff's employees have increased.
Guidelines regarding the updating of the payroll components following extension orders do not retroactively change an existing contract that did not include an explicit update mechanism as aforesaid, or force the external service customer to bear these costs.