The financial administrator of Derech HaTorah Elementary School sent out a memo: “The school must trim expenses across the board by 15%; please submit proposals.”
The kitchen submitted a list of recommendations to trim its budget, among them:
“At present, many of the teachers and staff eat lunch in the Yeshiva lunchroom. This amounts to 30-40 additional servings daily. Restricting lunch to students alone would reduce food costs by approximately 5%. This step can be implemented immediately.”
At the committee meeting, the faculty representative objected to this exclusion. “For years, the teachers have eaten in the lunchroom,” he argued. “Changing this policy would place upon them an unnecessary burden and expense to bring their own lunch.”
“The free lunch was a benefit we were happy to provide so long as we were able to,” replied the financial administrator. “There is no stipulation in the contract that entitles you to a free lunch, so we are under no obligation to continue this practice. Furthermore, almost no other job provides this benefit.”
“Although eating a free lunch is not stipulated in the contract, this has been the practice in Derech HaTorah for years,” countered the faculty representative. “This is also the practice of most other schools that have a lunchroom; teachers are allowed to eat there.”
“What other schools do is their business, but has no relevance for us,” the administrator said. “We have no obligation to provide benefits not stipulated in the contract.”
“Teachers here should be granted the same conditions as teachers in comparable educational settings,” responded the faculty representative. “We view this benefit as a proper courtesy and a fair supplement to our meager salary. Certainly during the school year itself, you cannot change the terms of the employment.”
“It does not seem to me that eating a free lunch is considered a term of employment,” the administrator insisted. “We desperately need to curb expenses, and there is no reason not to implement this step now.”
“The question of whether to continue the practice in future years should be finalized later,” interjected the principal. “However, the question of whether there is an obligation under the current contract to allow the faculty to eat in the lunchroom is a halachic one. The question should be addressed to Rabbi Tzedek before we make a decision.”
The principal called Rabbi Tzedek and explained the issue to him. “I’m putting you on speakerphone,” he said. “Can you guide us?”
Rabbi Tzedek ruled: “If it is common for comparable educational institutions to allow faculty to eat in the lunchroom, the school is required to provide free lunch, unless they specifically stipulated otherwise in the contract.”
Rabbi Tzedek then explained, “One of the most fundamental principles of employee-employer obligations is the rule, ‘hakol k’minhag hamedina’ – ‘everything is according to the common practice.’ It is impossible to stipulate every last point in a contract, so whatever is not explicitly addressed follows the common practice. The issue of providing a meal is mentioned in the Mishna (B.M. 83a) as an example of this rule: ‘In a place where the practice is to provide a meal – [the employer] is obligated to provide a meal; to provide refreshments [e.g., coffee and tea] – he is obligated to provide refreshments... everything according to the common practice.’
“The notion of common practice also varies from profession to profession. Although almost all employers do not provide free lunch, in educational institutions with a lunchroom that serves meals to its students, the general practice is to allow teachers to eat there as well. Therefore, even though this benefit is not mentioned in the contract, the employer is obligated to provide it, in accordance with the common practice (C.M. 331:2). Furthermore, since this was the established practice in Derech HaTorah, the employment was taken under this condition, even if not explicitly mentioned.
“The principle of hakol k’minhag hamedina applies to all employers,” concluded Rabbi Tzedek. “As we mentioned, if the common practice is to provide coffee and tea to workers, the employer is obligated to provide a machine for this. If it is standard to allow employees a half-hour lunch break, the employee is entitled to this break even if not stipulated in the contract.”
“Can the school amend the contract next year to exclude this benefit?” asked the principal.
“Yes,” replied Rabbi Tzedek, “since whatever explicit agreements the parties reach is binding in monetary matters (C.M. 337:17).”