650M
NIS in alleged damages
3,000
employees in the alleged class
216K
NIS average alleged damage per employee (7 years)
What exactly was filed?
A motion to certify a class action against El Al and the Histadrut, alleging systematic harm
to the wage and social rights of permanent employees who retired or were dismissed during the
relevant period.
Who are the petitioners?
The petitioners are former El Al employees and the association working to advance their
status. At this stage the petitioners' names are not published, in line with the proceeding's
own decision — so we do not disclose them here either.
What is the central claim against El Al?
The claim alleges that for years El Al applied a uniform wage mechanism in which collectively
agreed wage components were "absorbed" into a technical payroll item called a "minimum wage
supplement" — so that the base wage used to calculate pension, severance, and retirement
benefits was understated.
How many employees were affected, and by how much?
According to the motion, roughly 3,000 employees are affected, with an estimated average
damage of about NIS 216,255 per employee over roughly 7 years. Total alleged damages for the
class are estimated at about NIS 648,765,000.
Why is the Histadrut also named?
According to the motion, the Histadrut is named over an alleged failure in its duty of fair
representation of employees over time, which the petitioners claim allowed the alleged
mechanism at El Al to continue.
Were there prior complaints that went unaddressed?
The motion alleges that repeated inquiries were sent to El Al and the Histadrut over roughly
three years before it was filed, including a warning letter, without the alleged harm being
corrected.
What remedy is being sought?
At a principled level, the petitioners seek the return of funds allegedly withheld from
employees, and a correction to how the base wage and related benefits are calculated — so that
the money is returned, as the motion puts it, "to its rightful owners": the employees.
What happens now, and what's the next step?
The Labor Court has not yet ruled on certifying the proceeding as a class action. The claims
in the filings have not yet been examined by the court, and all details on this site are based
on the proceeding's filings as submitted — not on a court ruling.
The information on this page is based on the legal filings submitted by the association and its
public statements, and reflects the petitioners' position as presented in them. The legal
proceeding has not yet been decided, and the claims have not yet been examined by the court. The
association will update this page as the proceeding develops.