- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
Partial Pay for a Worker Who Did Not Complete a Job
The defendant (=def) hired the plaintiff (=pl) and two friends to paint a home he wanted to rent out. Def promised to pay pl 25 shekels an hour and his friends 20. After a few days, pl quit because he found another job, prompting def to hire a different painter for 30 shekels an hour. The delay in finishing the work prevented def from renting out the home when he wanted, resulting in a loss of one month’s rent. Pl says that he would not have taken the job had he known the home was for rent; he demands full pay for the time he worked.
Case:
Ruling: A worker may quit his job in the middle without losing the accrued salary. However, if the employer has to hire a new worker for more money to avoid loss, he can withhold that extra amount over the first worker’s projected wages (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 333:5-6). Loss of income which would have been attained had the worker continued working justifies doing so (Chazon Ish, Bava Kama 23:22). This applies to our case where it was justified for def to hire a new worker for a higher wage to try to rent the home on time. Def though cannot deduct for the loss of the rental. Although pl denies committing to work for a month, def is believed to say that he did because if def was willing to lie, he could have said that he already paid pl (migo).
The Ramban (Bava Metzia 76b) explains that the reason an employer can deduct the new worker’s salary is that the first worker is assumed to accept such losses when he takes the job. Based on this, the Pitchei Choshen reasons that if the worker was unaware that quitting the job he accepted could cause losses, he is not liable for such measures. In our case, pl was unaware of that situation. Similarly, the Nachalat Tzvi (CM 291:24) says that the rules of deducting from the worker to pay for a new worker apply only when he was hired for something that was known to include a loss. In contrast, if he was hired for a multitude of tasks that happen to include some that include losses when one stops in the middle, he can quit without having money withheld.
Even according to Tosafot (Bava Metzia 76b) that the withholding of pay in this case is due to dina d’garmi (payment for semi-direct damages), there is reason to exempt def in this case. That is because: 1) The Rambam (Sanhedrin 6:1) says that one is obligated to pay for garmi only when he damaged on purpose; 2) Since def knew that there would be losses, he should have informed pl. We cannot make pl lose for doing something that was not within his control to know.
Regarding calculation of his pay, the majority opinion was that since pl received more than the going rate, it is logical that this was on the understanding that he would in fact carry out the full project for which he was hired. Therefore, he will be paid for the work he did only at the rate of 20 shekels per hour.
The defendant (=def) hired the plaintiff (=pl) and two friends to paint a home he wanted to rent out. Def promised to pay pl 25 shekels an hour and his friends 20. After a few days, pl quit because he found another job, prompting def to hire a different painter for 30 shekels an hour. The delay in finishing the work prevented def from renting out the home when he wanted, resulting in a loss of one month’s rent. Pl says that he would not have taken the job had he known the home was for rent; he demands full pay for the time he worked.
Ruling: A worker may quit his job in the middle without losing the accrued salary. However, if the employer has to hire a new worker for more money to avoid loss, he can withhold that extra amount over the first worker’s projected wages (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 333:5-6). Loss of income which would have been attained had the worker continued working justifies doing so (Chazon Ish, Bava Kama 23:22). This applies to our case where it was justified for def to hire a new worker for a higher wage to try to rent the home on time. Def though cannot deduct for the loss of the rental. Although pl denies committing to work for a month, def is believed to say that he did because if def was willing to lie, he could have said that he already paid pl (migo).
The Ramban (Bava Metzia 76b) explains that the reason an employer can deduct the new worker’s salary is that the first worker is assumed to accept such losses when he takes the job. Based on this, the Pitchei Choshen reasons that if the worker was unaware that quitting the job he accepted could cause losses, he is not liable for such measures. In our case, pl was unaware of that situation. Similarly, the Nachalat Tzvi (CM 291:24) says that the rules of deducting from the worker to pay for a new worker apply only when he was hired for something that was known to include a loss. In contrast, if he was hired for a multitude of tasks that happen to include some that include losses when one stops in the middle, he can quit without having money withheld.
Even according to Tosafot (Bava Metzia 76b) that the withholding of pay in this case is due to dina d’garmi (payment for semi-direct damages), there is reason to exempt def in this case. That is because: 1) The Rambam (Sanhedrin 6:1) says that one is obligated to pay for garmi only when he damaged on purpose; 2) Since def knew that there would be losses, he should have informed pl. We cannot make pl lose for doing something that was not within his control to know.
Regarding calculation of his pay, the majority opinion was that since pl received more than the going rate, it is logical that this was on the understanding that he would in fact carry out the full project for which he was hired. Therefore, he will be paid for the work he did only at the rate of 20 shekels per hour.

P'ninat Mishpat (682)
Rabbi Yosef Goldberg
18 - Securing Confidential Information
19 - Partial Pay for a Worker Who Did Not Complete a Job
20 - Overcharging of the Value of Reputation
Load More

Was the Garden Included?
Based on ruling 82073 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5783

Ending Rental Due to Extenuating Circumstances
Various Rabbis | Tevet 5768

Competition Between the Licensed and the Not Licensed
Various Rabbis | 5774

Holding Guarantors to their Commitment? – part I
based on ruling 71055 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 6 5780

Various Rabbis
Various Rabbis including those of of Yeshivat Bet El, such as Rabbi Chaim Katz, Rabbi Binyamin Bamberger and Rabbi Yitzchak Greenblat and others.

Can a Tzaddik Deteriorate?
5770

“By their Families and the Household of their Fathers”
2 Sivan 5770

Responsibilities Based on Different Modes of Influence
Sivan 26 5777

Sub-Par Guest House Experience? – part II
Tevet 12 5777

Roasted Foods on Pesach
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Nissan 12 5776

Why Do Children Start With Vayikra?
Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli zt"l | 5771
The Role of Parents in Marriage
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5764
The Mitzva of Reclining
Chapter Sixteen-Part Three
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5775

Livelihood from Heaven
Rabbi Haggai Lundin | Shvat 5783

What’s new, Israel?!
Rabbi Stewart Weiss | Adar 5783

Stock in a non-kosher food compony, or sells chametz on Pesach?
Rabbi Stewart Weiss | Adar 5783
