Holmes Place Gym Chain Ordered to Pay NIS 250,000 to Cleaner
Translated & summarized from Mako by baba
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Holmes Place ordered to pay NIS 250,000 to a cleaner.
- Court ruled gym chain was direct employer, not contractor.
- Worker lacked proper payslips and employment terms.
- Termination occurred after dispute over lunch break.
- Chain failed to identify the alleged contracting company.
A Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court has ordered the Holmes Place gym chain to pay NIS 250,000 to a cleaner and maintenance worker who was fired after approximately seven years of employment. The court ruled that despite Holmes Place's claims that the worker was employed through an external contractor, the gym chain acted as his direct employer and failed to provide him with his rightful social benefits.
The worker, employed at the chain's Givat Shmuel branch until 2023, initially worked through a contractor for three years. During his tenure, he performed complex maintenance tasks, worked long shifts, and was fully integrated into the branch's operations, receiving direct instructions from managers. His employment was abruptly terminated in April 2023 when a branch manager allegedly demanded he stop his lunch break to address a leak, and then fired him on the spot when he requested to finish his meal after extended work hours.
Holmes Place argued that the worker was not their employee, as he was not on their payroll and they did not pay him. They also claimed that the amount he received exceeded his agreed-upon salary and sought a deduction. However, the court found that the gym chain could not identify the specific contracting company that employed him, nor was the worker provided with proper payslips or a document detailing his employment terms. He was paid NIS 10,000 in cash, with management unaware of who issued the payment.
The court stated that the worker performed his job for years at the same branch, in the same role, under the management of individuals acting on behalf of Holmes Place, without any documentation proving employment by a specific contractor. Therefore, the court concluded that Holmes Place was his direct employer during the relevant period, citing the chain's "indifference" to his employment status and rights.
Judges Sharon Shavit Keftori and public representative Dov Past ordered Holmes Place to pay the compensation for wage differentials, neglected social rights, overtime pay, wrongful termination, and legal expenses. The court rejected the chain's claim for a salary deduction, deeming it raised too late in the proceedings. Holmes Place stated they are reviewing the ruling.
