Mr. Strauss was hired to coach the community’s Little League baseball team. The initial agreement was for a year, for which he was to receive a monthly salary. In addition, his family was granted free membership at the local JCC.
At the end of the year, no one said otherwise, so Mr. Strauss continued on as coach. Two months later, he received a bill from the JCC for annual membership dues.
Mr. Strauss approached his employer about the membership bill.
“The free membership was a perk for the first year only,” said his employer. “We never discussed terms for this year.”
“I assumed that last year’s agreement would continue,” said Mr. Strauss. “I’m continuing in the same capacity, so without any discussion otherwise, the same salary and conditions should continue.”
“Not necessarily,” said his employer. “We gave you special consideration for the first year to introduce you to the activities of the JCC. This year we are not interested in providing free membership.”
“But the free membership is part of the salary!” argued Mr. Strauss.
“Who says?” responded his employer. “You’re still getting a monthly salary. Even the salary was never explicitly spoken about beyond the first year.”
“What do you expect?” asked Mr. Strauss. “That I should work for free?”
“No,” said the boss. “I just meant that the salary beyond the first year is negotiable. Certainly, I don’t see the need to toss in free membership.”
“This seems unfair to me,” said Mr. Strauss. “I’d like to discuss the issue together with Rabbi Dayan.”
The two came before Rabbi Dayan. “I continued on working after the completion of my one-year agreement,” said Mr. Strauss. “Do the same salary and benefits continue?”
“The Rivash [Responsa #475] addresses the similar case of a chazzan who was hired with the additional benefit that he be exempt from certain municipal taxes,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “He was rehired by subsequent community leaders without explicitly stating this benefit. The Rivash ruled that an employee who is rehired is assumed to be with the same conditions. Similarly, one who rents a house for a set time and continues on beyond the time, pays the same rent.
“The Rama [333:8] cites this ruling, with the qualification that the worker was rehired. However, if he simply continued on, we do not necessarily assume that all the original conditions continue. He brings proof from a responsa of the Maharik [#118)] regarding two partners, one of whom agreed to a certain stipulation for a number of years. If the partnership continued on in silence, this stipulation does not continue. It seems, according to the Rama, that the worker is considered as who works with no agreement and would get paid the minimum going rate.
“The Taz [333:8] and Shach [333:44], however, dispute the Rama’s qualification, and maintain that the original terms continue. Taz explains that only when there was no requirement to pay initially, as in the Maharik’s case – that the stipulation was a compromise forced by arbitrators – does the stipulation not continue. When payment is required for services, though, the terms remain even if the worker continued on in silence.
“Aruch HaShulchan [333: 30] suggests that even the Rama only meant that regarding future months the former conditions are not binding, but regarding any work already done in silence the original conditions continue on.
“Others suggest that the Rama referred only to additional benefits, but the base salary clearly continues, since one cannot expect the worker to continue for free, similar to a rental that the base rent continues if nothing was said.” (See Pischei Choshen 8:6[16])
