Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Noa Ben-Ami seeks ₪300 from Eitan Shalev for an alleged six-hour Friday shift at an alleged rate of ₪50 per hour. She says Eitan asked her to cover the shift, that she sent a message on arrival and another when leaving, and that the shift was omitted from her pay. Eitan accepts that the messages support her presence at the shop but disputes that they establish six hours of work. He also says the shift record is blank and that he has no separate time or payment record available. 2. The parties have both made their final submissions. No further question is needed: the record identifies no obtainable proof that would resolve the remaining gaps, and the court must decide the claim on the evidence presented. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Noa proved that she worked six hours and whether she proved that wages remain unpaid in the amount of ₪300. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Rule 25 requires a clear accounting of what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 6 requires the remedy to match the harm established. Submissions of the parties 4. Noa’s side argues that the morning message shows the start of the shift and the later message shows its end, together establishing a six-hour period. It says Noa forgot to use the attendance clock and that the pay stub showed the shift was missing. It asks for ₪300, calculated as six hours at the alleged ₪50 hourly rate. 5. Eitan’s side argues that the messages establish presence at two points, not continuous work for six hours. It accepts that the blank shift record does not prove Noa was absent. Eitan says he cannot provide a separate time record or payment record and asks that the full claim be denied, or limited to hours the evidence supports. Evidence and findings 6. The presented morning-message exhibit states that Noa messaged Eitan, “I’m at the shop now.” It supports her presence at the shop at that time. The later-message exhibit states that Eitan asked Noa to leave the keys in the drawer and that she replied, “Done, leaving now.” It supports her presence when she left. The record does not provide the timestamps for either message. The later thread is described as discoverable, but no timestamped version was presented. The court therefore cannot infer a six-hour interval from the exhibits. 7. The shift record shows no clock-in or clock-out for Noa that Friday. It is relevant to the hours question, but its blank entry is not proof that she was absent or did no work. Noa’s explanation that she may have forgotten to use the clock is relayed in a client statement through counsel. That account is relevant, but it is not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. Eitan says he has no separate time record; the record does not establish otherwise. 8. Noa’s submissions refer to a pay stub showing the Friday shift was missing, but the pay stub itself was not presented. The record also contains no payment record. Eitan’s inability to show payment does not establish the amount earned or prove that the claimed wages were omitted. The alleged hourly rate and six-hour calculation appear in Noa’s account and submissions, but are not independently confirmed by a presented pay document or other record. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Noa bears the burden of proving six hours worked. The messages are useful evidence of arrival and departure, but without timestamps they do not establish the length of the interval. Even proof of a six-hour interval between messages would not, by itself, establish that Noa worked throughout it. The blank shift record does not defeat her claim, but it does not fill the evidentiary gap. The client account supports Noa’s version, yet its attributed and unverified nature, together with the absence of time details, is insufficient on this record to establish six hours. Under Rules 1 and 2, the court finds the claimed six hours not proven. 10. On the second issue, Noa must prove both the wages earned and that they remain unpaid. The requested ₪300 is mathematically consistent with six hours at ₪50 per hour, but a calculation based on unproven inputs does not establish the amount owed. Rule 25 calls for a clear accounting. The described but unpresented pay stub cannot be examined for its contents or reliability, and no other payment or wage record supplies the missing accounting. Eitan has not proved that he paid Noa; however, that does not shift Noa’s burden or establish that ₪300 is due. Because the hours, rate, and omission are not sufficiently established, the amount of unpaid wages is not proven. Rule 6 does not permit an award unsupported by the proven harm. 11. Eitan’s request to reduce any award to hours supported by the evidence does not provide a basis for a partial award: the record establishes presence at two points but does not establish a particular number of compensable hours or a corresponding amount. The court therefore cannot calculate a smaller award without speculation. This conclusion is limited to the evidence in this hearing and is not a finding that Noa was absent or that Eitan paid the wages. Final order 12. The claim by Noa Ben-Ami against Eitan Shalev for ₪300 is denied. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. The defendant prevails because the plaintiff did not prove the claimed hours or a clear amount of unpaid wages. The court makes no finding that the wages were paid; it finds only that the requested debt was not established on the available record.