Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 January 2014,
by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Player N, from country F
as Claimant
against the club,
Club K, from country L
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 28 February 2013, Player N, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the
Club K, from country L (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as of the date of signature until 30
November 2013.
2.
The contract specifies, inter alia, that the Respondent is to provide the Claimant
with a monthly salary of EUR 1,200 due on the 10th of the following month.
3.
Article 4.2.6 of the contract stipulates that the Respondent provides “in
compliance with the internal rules, transport during trips (matches, training camps
and similar purposes) and/or to compensate the Player’s related expenses”.
4.
On 25 June 2013, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the
Respondent for breach of contract, requesting the amount of EUR 29,537.34
composed as follows:
- EUR 12,000 as the alleged entire fixed remuneration due under the contract;
- EUR 3,000 as housing assistance;
- EUR 533.44 as travel costs corresponding to the amount of EUR 196.33 for a
ticket country F – country I, plus the amount of EUR 337.11 for a ticket country Lcountry F;
- EUR 450 corresponding to bonuses in relation to three victories in the country L
championship;
- EUR 2,500 as expenses for housing in country F;
- EUR 439.72 corresponding to telephone costs from February to April 2013;
- EUR 4,500 corresponding to the costs for the sale of his car;
- EUR 114.18 as the car insurance costs for the months of February and March
2013;
- EUR 6,000 corresponding to moral damages.
5.
The Claimant alleges that he received no salary or any other payment from the
Respondent. The Respondent apparently neither provided him with
accommodation nor reimbursed the costs for his travels. The Claimant underlines
that he was entitled to such reimbursements in accordance with the contract and
states that the amount of EUR 300 had been agreed as living costs to be paid by
the Respondent on a monthly basis. Besides, the Claimant explains that his living
conditions in country L had deteriorated. He alleged that he first lived in a hotel
and then was compelled to move to an unsanitary home for young workers.
6.
This whole situation led to the departure of most of the country L players and
staff. Facing this untenable situation and remaining without any news from the
Respondent, the Claimant decided to leave the club and return to country F. In
this regard, the player provided the copy of a flight ticket to country F dated 24
April 2013. Nevertheless, the Claimant kept contacting the Respondent and was
apparently offered to reintegrate the team but only if he would accept the
reduction of his salary to EUR 290 per month. The Claimant stated having declined
the offer.
Player N, from country F / Club K, from country L
2/6
7.
Upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant confirmed that he joined the country F club,
Club U, as an amateur on 16 August 2013.
8.
In spite of having been invited to present its position on the Claimant’s claim, no
reply was ever received from the Respondent.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the
matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 25 June 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(edition 2012; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at
hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in
conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2012) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a country F player and a country L club, and which value does not exceed
currency of country H 100,000.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with
art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 June
2013, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this
respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as
well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However,
the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for
the assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had
signed an employment contract valid as of 28 February 2013 until 30 November
2013 in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant a fixed
monthly remuneration of EUR 1,200. At this stage, reverting to the content of
the contract and especially its duration of nine months, the DRC judge considered
that the entire fixed remuneration due under the contract amounted to EUR
10,800.
6.
The DRC judge further observed that the Claimant lodged a complaint in front of
FIFA against the Respondent, claiming that he left the club on 24 April 2013,
Player N, from country F / Club K, from country L
3/6
inter alia, as a result of his remuneration having remained unpaid by the
Respondent since the beginning of the contract.
7.
Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent failed to present its
response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. By
not presenting its position to the claim, the DRC judge was of the opinion that the
Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of
the Claimant.
8.
As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred
that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a
decision upon the basis of the documentation already on file; in other words,
upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant.
9.
The DRC judge highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute was to
determine whether the contract had been terminated by the Claimant on 24
April 2013 with or without just cause. The DRC judge also underlined that,
subsequently, it would be necessary to determine the financial consequences
for the party that is to be held liable for the early termination of the pertinent
employment contract.
10.
Indeed, from the aforementioned facts, it can be noted that the Claimant
terminated the employment contract by leaving the club and returning to
country F on 24 April 2013, as the Claimant alleged having received no salary
or any other payment from the Respondent from the beginning of the
contractual relationship until the date of his departure.
11.
In this regard, the DRC judge stressed that, on the basis of the contract, the
Claimant’s first monthly salary was due on 10 April 2013, and thus,
remuneration of only one month, i.e. March 2013, had fallen due at the time
the Claimant left the club on 24 April 2014. In this respect, the DRC judge
deemed it fit to point out that, in general, that is, regardless of specific
circumstances surrounding a matter, solely the non-payment of one monthly
remuneration cannot be considered a just cause for a player to cease rendering
his services to a club. Therefore, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant
had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the contractual relationship with
the Respondent on 24 April 2014.
12.
Having established the above, the DRC judge focussed its attention on the
consequences resulting from the early termination of the employment contract
without just cause by the Claimant. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of
the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant is not entitled to
receive from the Respondent any compensation for breach of contract.
13.
The DRC judge then reverted to the Claimant’s financial claim, which includes,
inter alia, outstanding salaries as of 28 February 2013 until 24 April 2013, being
the period during which the Claimant offered his services to the Respondent.
Player N, from country F / Club K, from country L
4/6
The DRC judge recalled that the Respondent had not contested that this
remuneration had remained outstanding, while the DRC judge established
that the Respondent apparently had had no valid reason not to pay the
Claimant’s remuneration for this period. Consequently, taking into account
that the contract was considered terminated as of 24 April 2013, at which time
the Claimant had offered his services to the Respondent for the months of
March and April 2013, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the
amount of EUR 2,400 relating to the salaries due to the Claimant in accordance
with the contract.
14.
Equally, with regard to the Claimant’s claim pertaining to travel costs
amounting to EUR 533.44, the DRC judge referred to the contract in order to
reject this part of the claim. Indeed, whilst the contract only refers to travel
costs for matches and training, the request of the Claimant does not fall under
the scope of the article in question.
15.
The DRC judge then turned his attention to the other claims for outstanding
amounts, i.e. in relation to the period during which the Claimant offered his
services to the Respondent. In this respect, in the absence of any monetary
value in the contractual condition pertaining to accommodation, telephone
costs, performance-related bonuses and a car, and in the absence of any
documentary evidence in this connection (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules recalling the principle of the burden of proof), the DRC judge had to
reject the Claimant’s claim relating to said fringe benefits.
16.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant
outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 2,400.
17.
Finally, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
III. Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player N, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club K, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration
in the amount of EUR 2,400, within 30 days as from the date of notification
of this decision.
3.
In the event that the abovementioned amount is not paid by the Respondent
within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of
expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration
and a formal decision.
Player N, from country F / Club K, from country L
5/6
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the
DRC Judge of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed
against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal
must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this
decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the
directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10
days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the
appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the
appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the DRC judge:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl: CAS directives
Player N, from country F / Club K, from country L
6/6