1

  • Reuven is head of an institution and is paid by the board for specific hours of work for the members.

  • Reuven is late every day by 15 minutes.

  • The members complain to the board that Reuven gives 15 min less "service" that he should according to what the members pay for.

  • The board informs the members that according to Reuven's contract if Reuven wants to come late then that’s his decision.

My question is:

  • Is Reuven stealing by being 15 min late as the members claim?

  • If yes, who is stealing from whom, from the members or from the board?

Improve this question
10
  • 1
    Between who and who is the contract? Or because it allows to see what is appening
    – kouty
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 22:56
  • Reuven is contracted by the institution which the board runs, however the members pay into the institution which becomes Reuven salary. If the board aren’t prepared to do anything allowing Reuven to come late and therefore in my opinion should be liable because they are allowing it”Ganev achar Ganev”? Perhaps.
    – Daniel Ross
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 23:04
  • Reuven is ok regarding his board. If the board has a problem with him, they will deal this privately, independently from the institution. Regarding the institution he is only representing the board that is in business with the institution.. So the chief of the board is a ganav.
    – kouty
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 23:09
  • First, if it is a fixed salary and specific hours are not required, then as long as he actually does his work completely, there should be no problem. If he stays 15 minutes later, then again there should be no problem. Digital Equipment Corporation had to move their software people away from the factory becaus the software group would work until 3 AM but the factory people only saw that they came in after noon.
    – sabbahillel
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 23:43
  • 1
    The board saying "if he wants to come late, it's his decision," in fact, changed the terms of his employment, so there is no gezel here. In a usual nonprofit setup, the board represents interests of the employer. Membership does not have any standing here, other than electing a new board.
    – user17319
    Commented Jan 20, 2019 at 0:38

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

  1. If I understand the question, it clearly shows that there's no straight contract/relations between Reuven and the members. So Reuven's service/produce all belongs to the board (the contractor). There could be no claim in the court between Reuben and the members.

  2. Between the board and the members, the later can sue the board in court for not providing the agreed amount of service/produce. In such case, the board can be "stealing" from the members.

Note: according to "כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה" rule, the members can not only claim getting less service (say, learning less Torah) but also גזל זמן that is caused by him being late, which is not exactly monetary but can be sometimes claimed as a loss of work time.

Improve this answer
2
  • If I understand the facts correctly, the board represents the members here. Can the general population sue members of congress whenever they disagree with their decisions as to what and how much services to provide? Obviously not.
    – user17319
    Commented Jan 20, 2019 at 13:50
  • Think about parent sending their kids to a regular school - so the parents are the members and the board is the one that mediates between them and the teachers. There's no straight link - no contract between the teachers and the parents. In other words parents do not decide on teachers.
    – Al Berko
    Commented Jan 20, 2019 at 20:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .