COMMUNITY MAGAZINE March 2021

42 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE In all publications of the Files of the Bet Din, the names and details of the case are changed in order to protect the privacy of the parties involved. From The Files of the BET DIN David, a professional roofer, hired workers to assist him with the repair of a roof in the local neighborhood. The workers, whowere close friends of David, abandoned the jobmidway through thework causing substantial damage. As a result of the damage, David was required to remove the partial roof already worked on, in order to start again with a different set of workers. In Bet Din, David demanded that the workers pay him for his loss on account of their deliberate decision to abandon the work site. The workers responded that they were not roofers by trade and that they merely volunteered to help David with his job. They claimed that they only volunteered to help him since he was very shorthanded on account of COVID-19. They added that they were never officially hired to do the job, as no specific wages were ever discussed. They explained that after two hours of work in the freezing outdoors they expressed to David that they realized that were in for more than they had signed up for. David responded that he had every intent to pay them in full for their services. Furthermore, David persisted that once they agreed to assist, they were responsible to complete the job. Is David entitled to collect damages from the defendants? How should the Bet Din rule and why? According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch an employee who quits his job is not required to pay his employer for structural damages and the like caused by the terminating of his employment. Although it is incumbent on an employee to service his employer in good faith, he is nevertheless exempt from liability even for foreseeable damage caused by his choice to terminate employment midway. While various halachic opinions differ with the above ruling, litigants of Sephardic origin are bound to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch . When an employee causes damage by abandoning his job midway, he is not entitled to collect the wages for his work. Since the employer did not benefit from the labor, he is not required to compensate the employee for his time. While a worker who quits midway is not liable for structural damage, he can, at times, be responsible for the increased cost of labor to complete the job. This responsibility to compensate his employer is applicable if at the time of his hire other workers were available at the same price. The underlying reasoning for this ruling is that a worker is responsible to fulfill his contractual agreement to his employer. The agreement includes the completion of labor at the fixed price between them. Although he maintains the legal right to quit midway, he is required to ensure his employer that the job will be completed at no additional cost. This ruling is applicable in instances in which the employer is currently sustaining a loss due to the reneging of his employee. If however, there is no imminent loss, the employer is instructed to patiently seek other employees willing to work at the original price. The above information is applicable to a hired worker. A person who volunteers to service another does not assume any liability. Early halachic authorities explain that only a paid worker has a contractual obligation to complete a job at a set price. Quite the contrary is the relationship of a volunteer servicing a person in need of a worker. Such a person is to assume from the very onset that it is very likely that a volunteer can and will abandon a job midway. Even in the event one offers a volunteer payment not to quit the job midway, nevertheless, in the absence of a preexisting agreement the volunteer is free from all liability. An employer claiming that he intended to fully compensate a volunteer after his work did not create a legal binding obligation and his intention to provide compensation for the work does not represent a contractual agreement. Hence, without stipulating clear terms of payment from the beginning of employment, a volunteer does not bear any responsibility when walking away from a job midway. TORAH LAW VERDICT No Strings Attached Rabbi Max Sutton , Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel THROUGH THE ROOF Our Bet Din rejected David the roofer’s claim for compensation from his workers. As mentioned in Torah law, even a paid worker is not liable for structural damage caused by quitting his job midway. Although a hired worker has a contractual obligation to his employer, making him responsible for various potential claims, nevertheless, a volunteer does not assume any liability when walking away from his job. David should have anticipated that volunteer workers are likely to abandon a difficult job. David’s claim that he intended all along to pay in full does not represent a binding contractual agreement. Without stipulating from the onset the terms of compensation for their employment, the workers are viewed as volunteers and are free of any liability. THE CASE