Rabbi gets payout in Mizrachi dispute
MIZRACHI SYNAGOGUE'S estranged rabbi, Moshe Gutnick, who took a dispute over his proposed sacking to the London Beth Din, has won an $800,000 payout after the court ruled he had the right to life tenure after 21 years of service.
CHANTAL ABITBOL
SYDNEY Mizrachi’s estranged rabbi, Moshe Gutnick, who took a dispute over his proposed sacking to the London Beth Din, has won an $800,000 payout after the court ruled he had the right to life tenure after 21 years of service.
But there’s a caveat: the money cannot be paid to him at the expense of the cash-strapped shul having to sell its premises or downsize.
The London Beth Din handed down its ruling over the weekend — more than two months after both parties flew to London, along with their consul, to attend a three-day hearing on the matter in June.
It concluded that, despite the shul’s “initial reluctance” to grant life tenure and “the absence of a signed contract”, an agreement between the two parties had been reached entitling the rabbi to such an arrangement.
The court, however, noting it was “an unusual request for a young, part-time official”, concluded life tenure meant the rabbi was only entitled to be paid until the normal retirement age in Australia of 65 — not 80, as the rabbi had argued.
That translated to an annual salary of $80,000 for the next 15 years, or $1.2 million. Factoring in other mitigating circumstances, however, along with the shul’s current financial woes, the court reduced the sum to $800,000.
The court said Mizrachi must pay $200,000 up front when the rabbi officially leaves the congregation, with the balance paid in monthly installments of $4000 over 12 years starting March 2012.
The case first appeared before the NSW Supreme Court in April when the rabbi won a last-minute injunction blocking the shul from voting on a proposal to make his position redundant after 22 years of service.
The rabbi had argued that the board’s attempt to remove him went against his contractual life tenure, and only a Jewish court had the right to decide on whether to make his position redundant. The court ultimately ruled it was a matter for the Jewish courts.
comments