Court Rules Bonus Earned After Employment Ends Is Not Payable
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
A Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court judge dismissed a NIS 1.2 million lawsuit by former project manager Assaf Shamla against the Rotstein real estate group. The court ruled that a bonus matured after Shamla's employment ended was not payable, as it was a conditional bonus and not a commission. Judge Karin Liber-Levin also stated that mentioning related companies in an employment contract does not create obligations for them. Shamla was ordered to pay NIS 27,500 in expenses.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- A judge ruled a bonus earned after employment ended is not payable, dismissing a NIS 1.2 million lawsuit.
- The court found the bonus was conditional and not part of the employee's base salary.
- Mentioning related companies in an employment contract does not create obligations for them, the court stated.
- The former project manager claimed NIS 600,000 in bonuses and additional compensation.
- The employee was ordered to pay NIS 27,500 in legal expenses.
A Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court judge has ruled that a project manager is not entitled to a bonus that matured after his employment concluded, dismissing his NIS 1.2 million lawsuit against the Rotstein real estate group. Judge Karin Liber-Levin stated that entitlement to payment for a deal completed after employment ends is a contractual interpretation issue with no universal rules.
Assaf Shamla, who worked for Rotstein from 2019 to 2022, claimed he was owed NIS 600,000 in bonuses and additional compensation. His employment contract with Rotstein included a fixed salary and a variable bonus, initially NIS 30,000 per project and later 0.1% of the group's project revenues. The court found the bonus was conditional and not part of his base salary, thus not payable for milestones achieved after his termination.
Liber-Levin also clarified that merely mentioning related companies in an employment agreement does not create an obligation for those companies towards the employee. Shamla's claim against related entities was deemed insufficiently argued, and the court noted his initial actions indicated he considered only one company his employer. The judge emphasized that the substance of a payment, not its label as a 'bonus' or 'commission,' determines its nature and whether it's part of base salary.
The court rejected Shamla's other claims and ordered him to pay NIS 27,500 in legal expenses. Public representatives Talia Yofa and Yamit Peled concurred with the ruling.
Mentioned
