Case Law Regarding Global Overtime Payments to Hourly Employees; and a Look at Whether Football is Still Played from Saturday to Saturday?

We are pleased to present to you an update in the field of labour law, which includes a concise overview of legislative updates and key court rulings issued in the past month. The update highlights prominent trends in case law and legislation and draws attention to developments that may be relevant to the management of employment relations and to the ongoing operations of employers and organisations. The emphasis is on practical aspects and potential implications, with the aim of enabling informed preparation.

Legislative Updates

Update to the Minimum Wage in the Cleaning and Security Sectors

As of January 1, 2026, a significant update to the sectoral minimum wage for employees in the cleaning and security sectors, both in the public and private sectors, entered into force.

The new framework bases the sectoral wage on the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Law, 1987, plus a fixed monetary supplement that is updated in accordance with the framework.

Accordingly, the minimum wage in these sectors has been updated to the following amounts:

• A full‑time cleaning or security employee is entitled to a total monthly salary of NIS 6,922.67, which reflects an addition of NIS 675 in comparison to the statutory minimum wage. Accordingly, the updated hourly wage is NIS 38.03 for such an employee.
• A full‑time cleaning or security supervisor is entitled to a total monthly salary of NIS 6,930.67, which reflects an addition of NIS 683 in comparison to the statutory minimum wage. Accordingly, the updated hourly wage is NIS 38.08 for such a supervisor.

 

In addition, two further update phases were established and will enter into force in 2027.

Under the framework, the fixed supplement paid beyond the general minimum wage will increase at the start of 2027 to NIS 750, and from April 2027 to NIS 800; the fixed supplement for cleaning or security supervisors will increase at those same dates to NIS 850 and NIS 900, respectively.

These updates will apply in addition to the expected update to the general minimum wage in April 2026, in accordance with the statutory indexation mechanism.

These changes require examination and preparation on the part of service recipients in the security and cleaning fields, both with respect to existing service agreements and in anticipation of new engagements, so that agreements can be adapted, where necessary, to reflect the updated cost of the sectoral minimum wage and the additional salary components included in the hourly rate.

 

Expiry of Certain Protections That Applied to Reservists and Their Spouses During the War

Amendment 19 to the Discharged Soldiers Law (Reinstatement to Employment), 1949, established, through a temporary order, that in certain circumstances the dismissal of spouses of reservists during reserve service and for 14 days thereafter would be prohibited without a permit from the Ministry of Defence’s Employment Committee, similar to the protections for reservists themselves. This temporary order expired on 31 December 2025, and there is no longer a requirement to obtain a permit, as also stated in the publication on the Ministry of Defence website (Link  in Hebrew).

In addition, on 31 December 2025, the Extension Order to the Sectoral Collective Agreement regarding Reservists and Their Spouses 2025 and the Accrual of Annual Leave for Certain Employees (Iron Swords) (No. 2) – expired. That order extended the benefits and protections granted to reservists and their spouses in 2024, including protection from dismissal for 60 days following the end of reserve service.

 

Draft National Insurance Law Memorandum (Employer Reimbursement for Employees During Reserve Service), 2026

On January 22, 2026, the Ministry of Justice published (Link in Hebrew) for public comments a draft memorandum amendment to the National Insurance Law concerning reimbursement to employers for payments made to employees during periods of reserve service.

In brief, the principal proposed amendments are reimbursement to employers (other than public employers) at a rate of 20% of the employee’s daily income, multiplied by the number of reserve‑service days performed, for payments made by the employer to a pension fund or provident fund and for National Insurance contributions paid by the employer during the reserve‑service period.

In addition, a temporary order is proposed – applying from January 1, 2026 to 30 June 30, 2028, under which an employer may be entitled to a grant in addition to the suggested reimbursement. The amount of the grant will be determined based on the number of reserve‑service days performed by the employee during the relevant period and as a derivative of the reimbursement amount paid to the employer for that period.

The proposed amendment will apply as of January 1, 2026.

 

Draft National Insurance Regulations (Employer Reimbursement for Reserve Service Constituting Emergency Service) – Temporary Order – “Tkuma War” (War of Redemption), 2026

On January 29, 2026, the Ministry of Justice published (Link in Hebrew) for public comments a draft of the National Insurance Regulations (Employer Reimbursement Regarding Reserve Service that is Emergency Service) (Temporary Order – Tkuma War), 2026. The draft proposes continuing to reimburse employers for pension contributions and National Insurance contributions at a rate of 20% of the reservist’s salary during the quarter preceding the reserve service.

The proposed regulations would apply from January 1, 2026 until March 31, 2026.

Although the protections granted to reservists and their spouses have expired, it remains advisable to review decisions to dismiss employees in close proximity to reserve service with caution and sensitivity. Publication of the National Insurance Law memorandum and the accompanying regulations, as noted above, forms part of a “package deal,” within which these protections may potentially be extended. In any case of doubt, we recommend seeking specific legal advice.

 

Case Law Updates

The Agadir Case – Global Overtime Payment for Employees Employed on an Hourly Basis[1]

On January 19, 2026, the National Labour Court issued a judgment in the appeal of an employee who had been employed on an hourly basis in the kitchen of the “Agadir” restaurant in Eilat. In the judgment, the Court addressed the legality of a global overtime‑payment arrangement in relation to hourly employees.

The Court held that there is no inherent impediment to applying a global overtime‑payment mechanism to hourly employees, and that the criteria established in case law for assessing the legality of such arrangements for monthly employees apply, with the necessary adjustments, to hourly employees as well.

The Maccabi Netanya Case – Application of Protective Legislation to Football Players[2]

On January 7, 2026, a judgment was issued in proceedings brought by individuals who had served as goalkeepers in two Premier League football clubs.

In the judgment, the Court considered the question whether football players are entitled to payment for work performed on the weekly day of rest, which would entitle them to a 150% premium, or whether there is justification for deviating from the Hours of Work and Rest Law in relation to football players.

The Court held that the starting point is the mandatory nature of labour‑protection legislation and that, in the absence of an explicit statutory arrangement, there is no basis to deviate from it. However, it found that the unique circumstances of the football industry – particularly the fact that a substantial part of players’ activity takes place on Saturdays, while granting alternative weekly rest during the week, lead to the conclusion that applying the mandatory requirement to pay additional wages for work on the weekly rest day is inconsistent with the purpose of the law. Accordingly, the Court held that football players are not entitled to additional payment for work on the weekly rest day, including because their salary is, for the most part, paid in respect of work performed on rest days.

The Court also addressed the players’ entitlement to redemption of annual leave and held that the summer recess between playing seasons, which generally lasts about one month, constitutes actual annual leave that typically exceeds the statutory entitlement. Therefore, the court ruled that the players were not entitled to redemption of annual leave.

Although the judgment concerns football players specifically, it illustrates the significance of purpose-driven interpretation in labour law and the National Labour Court’s willingness, in certain circumstances, to justify deviation from mandatory protective legislation where such deviation aligns with the industrial context.

 

We remain at your disposal for any questions or clarifications.

The Labour & Employment Law Department
Herzog Fox Neeman

 

[1]  L.C.A. (National) 18539‑10‑23 Suliman Abaker Etayib Mohamed v. Agadir Eilat Ltd. (published in Nevo, 19 January 2026).

[2] L.C.A. (National) 51985‑01‑25 Maccabi Netanya Football Club (2016) Ltd. v. Amos (published in Nevo, 7 January 2026).