Shabbat Parashat Vayakhel 5782

P'ninat Mishpat: Making Up for Unpaid Employment Benefits – part III

Case: The defendant (=def) is an NPO that runs various educational institutions, including the one that the plaintiff (=pl) started to head in 5769. Soon after pl started, def ran into financial difficulties, and in a meeting of heads of def’s programs, many heads agreed to cuts in salary to keep institutions open. Pl is now, after a few years, suing for the following matters: 1. The reduction in salary, which def forced on pl. 2. D’mei havra’ah (recreational payment) for 3 years, part of which def agrees to. 3. Loss of special rights that pl had with a pension fund, which he lost when def delayed payment to the fund, which def had promised, and despite warning. 4. A percentage of the fundraising sums he raised on trips abroad, which def promised pl he would receive but did not give him (22,868 NIS). Def’s specific claims we will see next to each subject raised, but two general claims were: statute of limitations and mechila (relinquishing rights). 

Ruling: We have dealt with reduction in salary, d’mei havra’ah, and loss of pension benefits.

A share in fundraising income: According to pl, when he started working for def, it was discussed that he would travel to fundraise for them, which he did sporadically, but the terms were not set. When the financial crisis arose, pl used family connections, in not simple ways, to put together a list of contacts in Canada, and then he traveled to solicit from them in 5770. Pl claims that he was promised 20% of the sum raised to make up for his salary reduction. In 5771, def wrote to pl that despite reservations, they would pay pl 22,864 NIS that he asked for in this matter in 20 payments. Pl now says that while he asked then for the share to make up for his reduction in salary, he now asks for it additionally. Def responds that when hired, it was decided that when pl would travel for fundraising, he would get $1,000 for room and board. Def admits to having agreed to giving a percentage for the trip in 5770 but claims that this was done under pl’s pressure at the time of def’s need.

The idea of paying for room and board is found in a draft of a contract (no contract was signed), which implies that this was the only financial compensation discussed. However, just as we said that the financial crisis enabled def to change some agreements due to new circumstances, so too pl was allowed to demand new arrangements for new situations, e.g., a pay reduction. Def’s claim that they agreed under duress is to be rejected, because it is still considered agreeing. We do not have to deal with the question of whether pl could receive a percentage of fundraising and also have his salary reduction undone because we have already rejected pl’s claim to restore his original salary.

A month after demanding 22,848 NIS, pl wrote that he had miscalculated and that he deserves 27,795 NIS, to which def demanded a detailed calculation. This implies that only on the new increased amount did pl have to give an exact accounting. Since pl is now only requesting the smaller amount, he does not have to provide that detail and thus will get the 22,848 NIS.

We conclude next time with the question of statute of limitation.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend