Israeli Court Approves Class Action Against Rami Levy Over Cashier Shortages

An Israeli labor court in Jerusalem has approved a class-action lawsuit against the Rami Levy supermarket chain, concerning the practice of deducting cash register shortages from employees' wages. The decision was made by Judge Rachel Berg-Hirschberg and public representatives Benjamin Elbaz and Bruria Maman.

The lawsuit was initiated by two former cashiers, Meir Edri and Baruch Shaltiel, represented by attorney Zvi Mendelson. The core of the legal challenge was the supermarket's practice of withholding funds from cashiers to cover discrepancies found in their registers at the end of a shift, either by deducting from their salary or demanding they pay the difference out of pocket.

The plaintiffs argued that a shortage at the cash register should not automatically be considered a debt owed by the employee to the employer, and that an employee's responsibility for the register does not grant the employer the right to deduct such amounts from their salary. The court accepted this central argument, ruling that shortages discovered in a supermarket's cash register cannot be classified as a "debt" under Section 25(a)(6) of the Salary Protection Law. Therefore, deductions from employee wages under this section are prohibited.

The court clarified that a "debt" for the purpose of the law is a defined, undisputed, and existing sum of money. A cash register shortage, conversely, is an alleged loss incurred during work that the employer seeks to recover from the employee. The court emphasized the protective nature of the Salary Protection Law and the need to prevent employers from unilaterally using their direct access to employee wages to collect disputed sums.

Furthermore, the court found that the chain operated under a "regime of absolute responsibility," where shortages were attributed to the cashier even when the cause could not be determined. The court distinguished between an employee's operational responsibility for a cash register and a legal debt to the employer, stating that responsibility does not automatically equate to personal financial liability for every discrepancy. The court also dismissed the chain's defense that employee signatures on "deduction approval forms" were sufficient, noting that these forms were often signed under pressure at the end of shifts without full explanation, and did not legally convert a disputed amount into a debt.

Attorney Zvi Mendelson hailed the decision as a significant victory for employees, particularly those earning minimum wage. He stated, "The employee's salary is not the employer's insurance fund. If a shortage occurs during work, it cannot automatically be turned into an employee's debt, and the money cannot be taken directly from their salary." He added that the ruling sets a clear boundary on an employer's power to use their control over wages to collect alleged damages, preventing employees from funding the business's normal risks out of their own pockets.