Unpaid Worker’s Compensation | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) was, for four years, a part-time teacher, who also lived in and supervised the dormitory of the defendant (=def; refers also to its representative), a high school. Pl claims that he was underpaid in certain elements of his compensation package for a total of 37,450 NIS. Different members of def’s administration (including some who no longer work for them) discussed salary matters with pl. The present director is unsure about the merit of some of pl’s claims. Def claims that since they paid pl at a high pay scale considering pl’s credentials and seniority, that should be returned if def has to make up some payment deficiencies. [We will present specific claim elements in the ruling.]

Ruling: Payment for hosting: Pl claims that he was asked one summer to oversee vacationers staying in the dormitory and was promised 3,000 NIS. He received 3,000 NIS soon thereafter, but the paystub called it a studies stipend. (Def’s rosh yeshiva (=ry) promised to help pl study towards an MA, because pl had planned to get one quickly, and def asked him to delay it in order to dedicate himself to def.) Def said that the stipend was only if pl would stay a year longer than he did. One administrator (adm1) confirms pl helped with vacationers, and ry admits he promised a stipend but does not know if def’s director approved it, as necessary. Since the paystub mentions the stipend, we can assume that the stipend was approved by def, and since adm1 admits that pl worked with vacationers, pl deserves both. Since the 3,000 NIS was only paid once, pl deserves another 3,000 NIS.

15% salary supplement for running dormitory: Pl says that he deserves this based on the collective bargaining agreement. Def says that the paystubs mention a 5% payment for "supervising the dormitory" and a 10.4% payment for "being on call" (which is the reason there is a supplement for dormitory supervisors). Beit din’s research shows that there are two different incentives – one for general "on-call" duty in counseling roles (12%) and another specifically for supervising a dormitory (15%). Def claimed that the fact that pl was given pay-level 16 should compensate. However, when def agreed to include pl in the collective agreement, that obligates in its elements, whereas level 16 impacts on a wider variety of elements. The two should not be seen as mutually exclusive. Therefore, pl deserves a 27% supplement and has received only 15.4%. Beit din’s expert calculated that this comes to 19,107 NIS.

Def’s claim that pl was overpaid 40,338 NIS – There is no demonstrated connection between pl’s rights to his claim and the claim that he was overpaid. Because the money was given by def without clear conditions, they cannot demand it back even if it were true that they would not have given so much if they knew about pl’s claims (see Pitchei Choshen, Kinyanim 17:(56)). Def admits that he was not involved when the early agreements were made, and therefore there is no way to know what def had considered that pl was deserving.