Was New Principal Properly Compensated? – part II | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

YeshivaThe torah world Gateway

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

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

Case: The defendant (=def) hired the plaintiff (=pl), an experienced educator, to start a girls’ high school. Her responsibilities included recruiting to open the school and then serving as the principal. There was a written contract between them. Pl failed to recruit the minimum number of students to be a recognized school that receives government funding, but def opened the school. Pl did not find a full staff of teachers and therefore did significant teaching. Towards the end of the first year, after pl did some recruitment for the next year, def fired her. [We will deal with various elements of the dispute separately.] Pl demands 50,000 NIS for the work she did in recruitment for the next year based on def’s request. Def states several claims for being exempt from such payment, including: 1. Pl was a bad recruiter, as seen by the weak results. 2. Recruiting is included in a principal’s job, which is why she recruited for the first class; there is no need for a separate recruiter. 3. Pl accepted the money she received, showing that even if she deserved more, she was mochelet (waived rights) to any more.

Ruling: Beit din ruled that pl shall receive pay during the months she recruited, based on the following counters to def’s claims of exemption:

P'ninat Mishpat (824)

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

725 - How to Take Payment from a Guarantor – part II

726 - Was New Principal Properly Compensated? – part II

727 - Veto Power of Special Stockholders – part I

1. Pl specified many activities she did and produced voluminous email communications she had as a recruiter. A worker is not judged on results, but by doing the job responsibly, unless specified otherwise. Additionally, in an email before the sides started quarreling, pl stated that she wanted to phase out her recruitment work, and def expressed disappointment and pressured pl to agree to do at least part of the job. This shows that def viewed pl as doing her job well or reasonably.

2. A principal is generally involved at least in setting standards for acceptance and supervising the recruiting, but not always does she do the day-to-day recruiting. This is confirmed by the facts that pl intended to continue as principal but not recruiter and that pl had looked for a recruiter and did not hire someone only because he demanded a high salary.

3. The rule is that one does not do work for free (Rama, Choshen Mishpat 264:4). The claim of mechila (waiving a right) against an established obligation is weak and does not get off the ground without significant proof (Shut Radbaz I:364). Also, here, pl spoke of her displeasure with not getting paid for recruitment, as def admitted at one point. Although pl continued to work even though she was not getting the pay for it month after month, sometimes a person sees that she is unable to, at that point, receive pay, and continues to work under protest because of a perceived lack of choice without being mochelet.

Two factors help determine how much pl should be paid for this work: 1. Part of the work was done during hours she served as principal. 2. When an amount is not agreed upon, the worker gets according to the lower scale. 3. There was an agreement on recruitment the previous year, and it was not altered. Beit din understands that pl did recruiting during her year as principal for seven months, and during that time she should get 1,750 NIS a month, as in the previous year.

P'ninat Mishpat