Haifa labor court denies ₪300 wage claim over unrecorded Friday shift
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
Messages showed the worker at the shop earlier and later, but the exhibits lacked timestamps. The court said neither the hours worked nor the amount unpaid was established.
Read the original in-game verdictThe decision
The Haifa Regional Labor Court denied Noa Ben-Ami's claim for ₪300 in unpaid wages from Eitan Shalev. Ben-Ami said she worked a six-hour Friday shift at his shop, but the court found that neither the claimed hours nor a clear amount of unpaid wages had been proved.
The dispute turned on what could be established when the attendance record was blank. Messages placed Ben-Ami at the shop earlier and later that day, but the court said they did not establish how long she worked.
The court's reasons
The morning message showed Ben-Ami saying she was at the shop. A later exchange showed Shalev asking her to leave the keys in a drawer and Ben-Ami replying that she had done so and was leaving.
Neither exhibit supplied timestamps, and no timestamped version of the later thread was presented. The court said it therefore could not infer a six-hour interval; even such an interval would not by itself prove that Ben-Ami worked throughout it.
The blank shift record did not prove she was absent or did no work, but it did not fill the gap in the evidence. The court also treated her account, relayed through counsel, as relevant but insufficient to establish six hours.
Ben-Ami's side referred to a pay stub omitting the shift, but did not present it. With no other wage or payment record establishing the hours, rate and omission, the court could not verify the claimed ₪300 or calculate a smaller award without speculation.
The parties' submissions
Ben-Ami's side argued that the arrival and departure messages marked a six-hour shift and that she had forgotten to use the attendance clock. It sought six hours' pay at an alleged agreed rate of ₪50 an hour.
Shalev accepted that the messages supported her presence and that the blank record did not prove absence. He argued, however, that the messages did not establish six hours of work and asked the court to deny the full claim or limit any award to supported hours.
Shalev also said he had no separate time or payment record available. The court said his inability to prove payment did not establish the amount earned or show that the claimed wages were omitted.
The background
Ben-Ami said Shalev had asked her to cover the Friday shift at his Haifa shop and that the next pay slip omitted it. The record contained no message documenting the alleged request for coverage.
The court ordered no payment by either party. Its decision was limited to the evidence presented: it did not find that Ben-Ami was absent or that Shalev had paid her wages.