Is a "position of trust" grounds for not paying overtime? - Voila! theorem

The lawsuit dealt with the employee's entitlement to overtime compensation under the Hours of Work and Rest Law (Photo: ShutterStock)

A principled and important ruling by the Haifa Regional Labor Court awarded compensation of NIS 154,000 to an employee who did not receive overtime compensation because according to his employers' position he was "senior" and "in a position of trust." The court rejected the employers' arguments and ruled that the agreement signed with the employee regarding overtime was illegal and invalid. Thus, the court accepted the employee's claim, which was represented in the proceeding by Adv. Eden Chen Tohami and won the full amount of the claim.

This is a lawsuit filed by the employee against his former employers, Haargaz Metal Industries Ltd. (a company currently in liquidation proceedings) and Haargaz Industries Ltd. The plaintiff worked at these companies between 2016 and 2020 in various positions at two sites - the Timurim industrial zone and the Barkan industrial zone.

The plaintiff's claim, filed through Adv. Tohami, dealt with his entitlement to overtime compensation under the Hours of Work and Rest Law. The employers rejected the claims of the lawsuit and believed that it should not be accepted. According to them, this is someone who was a senior manager in companies, to whom the Working Hours Law does not apply and who is not entitled to any additional payment, not even for overtime.

The employment agreement was not renewed and the salary was not updated

According to the lawsuit, at the beginning of his employment, the employee signed an employment agreement, but when he moved to the second company, no new agreement was signed between the parties and a sequence of rights was agreed while maintaining the same conditions.

The actual monthly salary was NIS 16,000. The plaintiff did not receive global overtime compensation as a separate component of his salary, despite the fact that it was proven by Adv. Chen Tohami that he actually worked overtime.

During the course of his work, the employee was employed in various positions - as a quality manager, site manager and production manager of complex aggravated items (fiberglass) and worked at the Barkan and Timurim work sites. From his appointment to the position of webmaster, his salary was not even updated.

According to attorney Chen Tohami, the employment agreement signed between the employing companies and the employee was drafted illegally, contrary to the protective laws and customary case law. Thus, for example, one of the clauses in the labor agreement states that the Hours of Work and Rest Law does not apply to his employment, since it is a "personal trust" position. Another clause in the agreement refers to the fact that his salary includes global compensation of 20% of his salary in exchange for performing overtime. This clause, according to the prosecution, also contravenes the provisions of the law.

The defendant companies argued in their defense that the lawsuit was filed "in bad faith" by a senior executive, contrary to established agreements with him. According to them, this is someone who served as a senior manager, who conducted himself independently in various fields, such as quality, and managed important processes. "This is," it was claimed, "a position of trust for all intents and purposes."

The defendants also noted that in light of his managerial position, high salary terms were agreed with the employee, in relation to industry and other employees in companies, and he also enjoys a private car and a study fund.

Advocate Eden Chen Tohami (Photo: PR)

The Labor Court rejected the employers' arguments

The Haifa Regional Labor Court was not impressed by the companies' position and rejected their many arguments. The judge accepted the position of Adv. Chen Tohami and ruled that the contractual arrangement between the parties "is not an arrangement consistent with the guidelines of the ruling," while Adv. Chen Tohami proved that the salary agreed with the employee was paid to him for basic salary only.

"The plaintiff," the ruling said, "does not enter into any of the exceptions to the Hours of Work and Rest Law, and cannot be regarded as someone who was an employee in a management position" or an employee 'in a position requiring a special degree of personal trust,' or 'an employee whose working conditions and circumstances do not allow the defendants any supervision over his working hours.'"

According to the ruling, the companies' claim that they paid the worker high wages was not proven because they did not provide relevant data. In addition, the Tribunal noted that the vehicle given to the employee was necessary for the purposes of his work.

The argument that the plaintiff's working hours could not be monitored was also rejected. "The plaintiff cannot be regarded as having conducted himself as 'independent in the field,'" wrote Justice Tal Golan. "In fact, the opposite has been proven, and the evidence and evidence show that the plaintiff reported regularly and was subject to a number of factors, who gave him instructions and instructions."

Moreover, the court strongly criticized the conduct towards the worker, saying that because he was a diligent and dedicated worker, his rights were violated. "There is no room to determine," it said, "that a capable employee who initiates proposals and takes on significant projects in the workplace will determine that the provisions of the Cogent Law, which is intended to protect workers, do not apply to him. This is a misplaced negative message to employees, and it thwarts the desire to excel at work."

It added: "Although the plaintiff had the senior authority in matters of quality assurance and quality control, this does not teach anything in relation to his organizational hierarchy, and especially in relation to gender expenses in the provisions of the Hours of Work and Rest Law."

The court awarded the employee compensation for non-payment of overtime in the amount of NIS 154,000, plus interest and linkage, along with NIS 8,000 for court costs and attorney's fees.

In recent days, the employers filed an appeal against the court's ruling without issuing an order to stay its implementation. The appeal has not yet been decided.

For more information on workers' rights, non-payment of overtime, social rights, representation in unlawful dismissal proceedings, withholding wages, women's rights at work and more, you can contact Adv. Eden Chen Tohamihere orby phone: 052-3633808

Article courtesy of Zap Legal

The information presented in the article does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for it and does not constitute a recommendation to take proceedings or refrain from proceedings. Anyone who relies on the information appearing in the article does so at his own risk

In association with Zap Legal

• theorem
• Labor Law

Tags

• Labor Law