However, the plaintiff placed his claim in respect of this component in the sum of ILS 14,469, and he cannot be awarded a higher sum than that.
- Instead of payments to the severance pay component - 48 Months X 10,080 ₪ X 6% = 29,030 ₪.
However, the plaintiff placed his claim in respect of this component in the sum of ILS 14,932, and he cannot be awarded a higher sum than that.
=> Total - 29,401 NIS.
- Redemption of convalescence - Section 5(a) of the Extension Order regarding the Employer's Participation in Convalescence and Vacation Expenses from 1998 states that a full-time employee is entitled to 5 days of convalescence in his first year of employment, 6 days in each of the second and third years, and 7 days from the fourth year to the tenth year. According to Section 5(b) of this Order, the entitlement arises after the completion of the first year of employment.
- In the Chicken Tenne case, it was held that when an employee proves that he has been employed for at least a year, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the payment of convalescence pay[74]. In the present case, the plaintiff claimed that he was not paid convalescence pay, and was not concealed by the defendant, who did not prove at all that such payments were made. The plaintiff was also not questioned in relation to this issue. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the redemption of convalescence pay in full.
- As for the calculation - since we determined that the plaintiff was employed for 7 years in the bakery, he is entitled to receive 7 convalescence days per year, for the period that has not become obsolete. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to convalescence pay in the sum of 7 (convalescence days per year) X 3.5 years, which is the period that has not become obsolete X ILS 378 (convalescence pay rate in the private sector for the years 2017-2021) = 9,261 ₪.
- Holiday Payments - With regard to proving entitlement to holiday pay, the National Court ruled that the employer has the burden of proof to show that the employee has been paid in full for the holidays. Let us turn to the following: "... When the appellant proves that he worked on a regular basis, for many years, for the respondent, it is presumed that he is also entitled to holiday pay, and the burden of proving that he was absent on the days adjacent to the holiday is on the employer"[75].
- The plaintiff claimed that he was not paid any holiday pay during the period of his employment. His claim was not contradicted by the defendant, who did not prove at all that such payments were made. The plaintiff was also not questioned in relation to this issue. The defendant's summaries also do not make any reference to this right. In light of the above, the plaintiff should be awarded the sum claimed by him, in the sum of 7,582 ₪.
- Travel - In the case law, it was determined that the burden of proof to prove that the employee was paid for travel expenses, or that the employee came to work on a bus funded by the employer is on the shoulders of the employer at all[76]. This is also the case before us, when the plaintiff claimed that he was required to return to his home once every three months, and that he did not receive any payment for the travel expenses. The plaintiff was not interrogated in relation to this claim either. In these circumstances, we determine that the plaintiff should be awarded the sum claimed by him, in the sum of 632 ₪.
- Sample compensation according to Wage Protection Law - Article 24 of the Wages Protection Law, 5718-1958 (hereinafter: "Wage Protection Law") imposes on the employer the obligation to maintain a payroll, as well as the obligation to provide each employee with a pay slip detailing the details of the salary paid to the employee. Section 26A(b)(1) The Wage Protection Law grants the Labor Court the authority to award compensation at the rate it deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case in an amount not exceeding ILS 5,000, if the employer did not knowingly provide his employee with a pay slip by the date specified in the law, or if the pay slip included incorrect details.
- In the matter Lux The National Labor Court detailed the manner in which the court will act when determining whether and when to award compensation, for example, by stating the following, as follows[77]: "In determining exemplary damages that are not dependent on the damage, the guidelines must be taken into account, along with the nature of the breach Wage Protection Law and the criteria that must be considered when making a decision on the actual imposition of compensation and its rate, as detailed below...".
- In the case before us, the plaintiff claimed that he was never given pay slips, and this claim was also not contradicted by the defendant, who did not present such pay slips. The defendant claimed in his summaries that it was not possible to issue a pay slip for the plaintiff, since he is an illegal resident, but this argument is also irrelevant to our case, and the responsibility for the manner in which the plaintiff was employed rests with the defendant. In these circumstances, we award the plaintiff a sum of 5,000 ₪ for this component of the claim.
- Compensation for failure to give notice to the employee - Section 1 The Notice to the Employee Law establishes the duty of an employer to provide the employee, no later than 30 days from the date of the commencement of his employment, a written notice detailing his working conditions, which are specified In section 2(a) of the law. However, since the plaintiff began working in the bakery on January 12,2014, but the claim was filed only in 2024, it is clear that the claim in this component has become obsolete. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
- Conclusion
- In conclusion - In light of all of the above, the lawsuit Get Accepted Rifle, and the defendant must pay the plaintiff the following amounts:
- Overtime payment in the sum of 211,201 ₪.
- Replace employer payments for the benefits component in the sum of 14,469 ₪.
III. Instead of employer payments to the severance pay component in the sum of 14,932 ₪.
- Convalescence redemption in the sum of 9,261 ₪.
- Holiday allowance in the sum of 7,582 ₪.
- Reimbursement of travel expenses in the sum of 632 ₪.
VII. Sample compensation according to Article 26 to the Wage Protection Law in the sum of 5,000 ₪.