0
- At the evidentiary stage in the case, the plaintiff testified in support of the claim. On behalf of the defendant, Mr. Gil Shaked, the defendant's CEO, and Mr. Pini Ayash, who was the manager of the local market at Dimer, testified.
Discussion and Decision
Compensation for deterioration of conditions in July 2020
- According to the plaintiff in his lawsuit, he is entitled to compensation at the rate of one month's wages, since in July 2020 the defendant notified him of a change in the manner his salary was paid, so that he would be paid a low base salary plus a percentage of sales. The plaintiff objected to the change and it did not take effect, but in relation to June 2020, he received a pay slip that lowers the base salary and adds a wage component of global overtime.
The defendant claims that the event described by the plaintiff occurred prior to the acquisition of ownership of the company. According to the coupons, with the exception of a different split of the salary components in June 2020, there was no harm to the plaintiff's salary, and it is not clear what damage he suffered.
- After weighing the evidence and the arguments, we did not find that it was proven that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the deterioration of his working conditions, as he claimed. Even if the plaintiff was offered to change the format of his salary payment, the pay slips show that in light of the plaintiff's objection there was no actual change. In an attachment to his affidavit, the plaintiff submitted two pay slips for the month of June 2020, one divided into basic salaries of ILS 8,000 and an additional global overtime of ILS 2,200, and the second, titled 7/20, on which it was written in handwriting: "Updated slip for the month of June 6/20" indicates the payment of a net salary of ILS 10,723, without detailing the salary components. After this month, the pay slips returned to the same as they had been in the past, and included payment of wages and compensation for overtime work in varying amounts, depending on the actual work.
- In the statement of claim, the plaintiff did not point to financial damage caused to him as a result of the attempt to change the terms of his salary, and claimed in general that he had encountered "financial difficulties". In his summaries, he claimed that he had paid income tax and National Insurance in a higher amount, and that pension deposits were made for him in a lower amount as a result of the change (section 140). He further claimed that in the following months he was paid a lower compensation for overtime work (section 141). As stated, the claims did not appear in the pleadings prior to this and in any case were not proven. The plaintiff did not present documents from the pension fund. A review of the pay slips shows that the pension deduction for all months in 2020, including June 2020, was fixed and amounted to ILS 610.62. This is with the exception of the slip that was presented for July 2020, which does not include details on the subject. The claims regarding overpayment to the tax authorities are unclear and have not been proven. The payments to the tax authorities are derived from the salary, and if, according to the plaintiff, he was overdeducted, he could have applied to the tax authorities for a refund.
- In these circumstances, entitlement to compensation was not proven, nor was the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff petitioned was proven.
- The claim for compensation for deterioration of conditions in July 2020 is dismissed.
Compensation for Late Delivery of Pay Stubs
- The plaintiff claims that during the period of his employment, five of the pay slips were given to him with a delay of one to four days, and he petitions for compensation without proof of damage as a result. The plaintiff pointed to the pay slips for the following months: October 2018; January 2019; March 2021; August 2021 and September 2021. According to the defendant, even if there was a slight delay, he does not grant him the right to compensation once the pay slips were delivered. Some of the delays stemmed from the COVID-19 period and the difficulties that occurred during it, or from the fact that the deadline for delivering the pay slip fell on weekends.
- Section 26a(b)(1) of the Wage Protection Law , 5718-1958 stipulates that:
"If the Labor Court finds that the employer did not knowingly provide his employee with a pay slip by the date stated in section 24(c), in contravention of the provisions of section 24(a), or that the employer knowingly provided his employee with a pay slip that does not include the details of the salary paid to the employee, in whole or in part, in violation of the provisions of section 24(b), it is entitled to award the employee compensation that is not dependent on the damage (hereinafter - exemplary compensation), due to any pay slip in respect of which the employer acted as aforesaid;"