Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 May 2012,
by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Player F, from country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club S, from country O
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 21 August 2008, Player F, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club
S, from country O (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract
valid as from the date of signature until 30 April 2009.
2.
According to the employment contract the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter
alia, a monthly salary of currency of country O 770, equivalent to USD 2,000
according to the contract, to be paid at the end of each month.
3.
On 26 October 2009, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the
Respondent for breach of contract without just cause and claimed the payment of
the total amount of USD 10,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of the original date of
payment according to the contract, made up of the salaries from December 2008
until April 2009.
4.
In addition, the Claimant requests that the Respondent shall be sanctioned.
5.
In his arguments, the Claimant pointed out that the club terminated the contract
in writing on 4 December 2008 without any valid reason. The Claimant provided
the termination letter of the Respondent, in which the latter states that the
contract is no longer valid as from 4 December 2008.
6.
The Claimant further states that after the unilateral termination of the contract by
the Respondent, he was ordered to return to his country and provided a letter of
the Respondent dated 4 December 2008, according to which “The club
administration has no objection for the player to play at any club he wishes to
participate with and he has been given this letter upon his request.”
7.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent rejected the claim and explained that the
Claimant was warned several times by the coach regarding his low performance
with the team. Therefore, the Respondent decided in the presence of the coach
and the Claimant to terminate the contract due to the Claimant’s bad
performance during the Respondent’s matches.
8.
Furthermore, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant thereafter received his
last salary of USD 2,000 and signed a document in language of country O,
according to which he would not ask for any further compensation from the club.
9.
The Respondent argued that it was explained to the Claimant and that the only
request he had was to receive his release letter, which was provided by the
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player F, from country B / Club S, form country O
2/7
10.
In his replica, the Claimant maintained his previous position and pointed out that
the Respondent had no just cause to terminate the contract due to the Claimant’s
performance. Moreover, and with regard to the alleged document the Claimant
stressed that it was in language of country O, and that even if he had signed it,
such document shall not be considered, since he was induced in error by the
Respondent’s side. Finally, he stated that all documents submitted as evidence
shall be duly translated into one of the official FIFA languages.
11.
Finally, the Claimant stated that he did not sign a new employment contract as of
December 2008 until April 2009.
12.
In its final position, the Respondent pointed out that even though the abovementioned document was in language of country O, the Claimant signed it and
thus agreed to the termination of the contract.
13.
The Respondent provided a translation of said document, which is dated 1
December 2008 and which states that the Claimant receives his salary for
November 2008 of currency of country O 770 and quotes that “The said
mentioned player undertakes to sign that he had received his salary and he will
not claim the Club to pay him any compensation or other financial dues for
termination of his service with the club.”
14.
In addition, according to the Respondent, the Claimant showed no objection to
the termination of the contract after he received the termination letter of the
Respondent on 4 December 2008. Moreover, the club stated that the Claimant
received his salary cheque every month in language of country O and signed it and
thus did not object to it.
15.
Furthermore, the Respondent stressed that the contract is subject to country O
labour law according to art. 2 of the contract: “This contract starts from 21/8/2008
until 30/4/2009 unless it is ended for any reasons mentioned in the country O labor
Law which regulates this contract.” Therefore, the Respondent stated that
according to art. 40 of the country O labour law “The employer has the right to
terminate the employee service without notice & without paying him the gratuity
of after service benefit in the following cases.”
16.
Finally, the Respondent stated that the Claimant should have claimed in front of
“the department at ministry of manpower [in country O] (…) if no amicable
settlement is reached, the case will be transferred to the competent Court for
legal settlement” in accordance with the country O labour law and not have
lodged his complaint in front of FIFA.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player F, from country B / Club S, form country O
3/7
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with
the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 26 October 2009. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the
matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules
and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with
art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2010) the DRC judge is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a country B player and a country O club.
3.
However, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Respondent claimed that not
FIFA but the competent court of country O was competent to deal with the
present case. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent did not
provide any documentation supporting its allegations and that the
employment contract did not make any reference to the jurisdiction of any
court of law in country O. Therefore, the DRC judge decided that he was
competent to deal with the present matter.
4.
In this respect, 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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2009), and considering that the present
claim was lodged on 26 October 2009, the 2009 edition of the said regulations
(hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
5.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC
judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts and
documentation contained in the file.
6.
In doing so, the DRC judge first of all established that it was undisputed that
the parties had signed, on 21 August 2008, an employment contract valid as
from the date of signature until 30 April 2009.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player F, from country B / Club S, form country O
4/7
7.
The DRC judge observed that according to the employment contract, the
Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of currency of
country O 770, equivalent to USD 2,000, to be paid at the end of the month.
8.
In continuation, the DRC judge took due note that, on the one hand, the
Claimant claims that the Respondent had breached the contract without just
cause by terminating the contract in writing on 4 December 2008 without a
valid reason and requests the payment of USD 10,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as
of the date of payment for the salaries from December 2008 until April 2009.
9.
The Respondent, for its part, denies that it owes the Claimant any monies,
since it terminated the contract with just cause due to the Claimant’s bad
performance and in this respect the Claimant signed on 1 December 2008 a
receipt in country O language for the salary of November 2008, according to
which he would not ask for any further compensation from the club.
10.
In view of the argumentation put forward by the Respondent, the DRC judge
deemed that, in order to be able to establish whether the parties had still been
contractually bound at the moment of the alleged breach of contract on the
part of the Respondent, it was crucial to closely examine the aforementioned
document with which the Respondent claimed to have put an end to the
employment relationship in question.
11.
In this regard, the DRC judge first of all acknowledged that the translation of
the document in question dated 1 December 2008 unequivocally holds the
following: “Salary of footballer mentioned above [Player F] for month
Nov./2008 R.O 770/. The said mentioned player undertakes to sign, that he had
received his salary and he will not claim the club to pay him any compensation
or other financial dues for termination of his service with the club.”
12.
Furthermore, turning his attention to the document in its original version in
country O language, the DRC judge noted that the document appears to bear
the signature of one of the Respondent’s representatives as well as the
signature of the Claimant.
13.
With regard to the foregoing, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant
invoked that the document was in language of country O, and that even if he
had signed it, such document shall not be considered, since he was induced in
error by the Respondent’s side and did not understand the contents of the
document.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player F, from country B / Club S, form country O
5/7
14.
In this respect, the DRC judge emphasised that a party signing a document of
legal importance without knowledge of its precise contents, as a general rule,
does so on its own responsibility.
15.
Moreover, the DRC judge also pointed out that the Claimant had never
explicitly claimed that he had not signed the document in question or
contested the translation of the documents provided by the Respondent.
16.
By examining the evidence at his disposal, in particular the signature of the
Claimant on the original version of the relevant document and the
employment contract, the DRC judge found that he had no other alternative
but to conclude that the Claimant signed a document by means of which he
acknowledged receipt of currency of country O 770 “[…] and [that he] will not
claim the Club to pay him any compensation or other financial dues for
termination of his service with the club.”
17.
Finally, the aforementioned considerations led the DRC judge to conclude that the
employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent had been
mutually terminated in December 2008 by means of the relevant document and
that, consequently, the Claimant’s claim for breach of contract by the Respondent
and related compensation, as well as his request for sanctions against the
Respondent has to be rejected.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player F, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Player F, is rejected.
*****
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player F, from country B / Club S, form country O
6/7
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 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 F, from country B / Club S, form country O
7/7