Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 May 2013,
by DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Player S, country R
as Claimant
against the club,
Club M, country L
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 31 August 2009, the club M from country L (hereinafter: the Respondent),
the club F from country R (hereinafter: club F), and the player S from country
R, (hereinafter: the Claimant), signed a “Temporary Transfer Agreement”
(hereinafter: the agreement), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May
2010 (i.e. 9 months), by means of which the Claimant was loaned to the
Respondent free of payment.
2.
Clause 4 of the agreement specified that the Claimant and the Respondent
would sign an employment contract valid as from 31 August 2009 until 31 May
2010, according to the following statements:
“§1° During this loan CAP [club F] will keep paying the player, in country R, the
salary fixed on the Labour Contract between CAP and the PLAYER.
§2° club M [the Respondent] will be responsible to pay to the PLAYER, in
country L, a complementary salary which will be agreed according to the
Labour Contract between club M and the Player and according to FIFA and
country L laws”.
§ 4° During the temporary transfer period, club M and the PLAYER will not be
able to anticipate the breach of this contract by sending the PLAYER back to
CAP before the date of expiry of this temporary transfer agreement, without
previous and express authorization from CAP. If it occurs without CAP’s
authorization, then club M shall pay the value mentioned in §5° below.
§5° in case that the PLAYER becomes a free agent, in consequence of any act
or omission of responsibility from club M, including, but not limited to the lack
of wage payment and benefits, then club M is forced to pay CAP the net
amount of EUR 2.000.000 (two million euros) in cash no later than 30 Thirty)
days from the date that the PLAYER becomes a free agent”.
3.
On the same date, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of
signature until 31 May 2010, i.e. 9 months.
4.
According to clause 1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled inter alia to
the following:
- monthly salary of the net amount of USD 5,000, payable by no later
than “10 banking days from the beginning of each month”;
- three return flight tickets in business class “city C – city P” for the
Claimant and “his family (wife and child)’s arrival on the beginning of
the contract and departure on the end of the contract”;
Player S, from country R / Player M, fro country L
2/9
-
three return flight tickets in business class “city P – city C” between
December 2009 and January 2010 “for the player, his wife and child’s
vacation”.
5.
On 1 July 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of
FIFA. After amending his claim, he requested the total amount of USD
37,808,59 according to the following breakdown:
- USD 35,000 as outstanding salaries for the months of November 2009
until May 2010, of USD 5,000 each;
- USD 2,808.59 regarding the flight ticket paid by the Claimant from city
P of country L to city C to country R.
6.
The Claimant alleged that the Respondent should have paid for his flight ticket
to country R, and since his vacation was approaching and the Respondent had
not proceeded to do so, he had to pay for it himself. Furthermore, the
Respondent allegedly did not provide him with a return ticket.
7.
In this regard, the Claimant further stated that club F proceeded to contact the
Respondent and asked them to send a return flight ticket as well as to fulfil
the contract. However, on 12 January 2010, the Respondent informed Club F
that “the football players Z, Player R and player A has free player status, as
club M have no interest to further cooperation with them”. According to the
Claimant, Club F was aware that the Respondent was not complying with the
contract and, therefore, requested the Respondent to release the Claimant “on
the TMS and on the Federation of country L”. According to the Claimant, this
was not done and consequently he was still registered with the Respondent,
not being able to train neither return to Club F, which caused damages to his
carrier. Moreover, the Claimant declared that the Respondent did not pay his
monthly salary as from November 2009 until May 2010.
8.
In response to the claim, the Respondent asserted that the contract was
terminated because the Claimant had left the Respondent without its consent
on 10 December 2009 and consequently did not participate in an official match
held on 12 December 2009. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that neither
the Claimant nor Club F tried contacting them in order to obtain the return
flight ticket and only proceeded to contact the Respondent after the contract
expired on 30 May 2010, and that there was no proof to the contrary.
9.
In his replica, the Claimant affirmed that he never left the Respondent without
the latter’s consent. Furthermore, he stated that if the contract was terminated
in December, as the Respondent holds, why did the Respondent not make it
Player S, from country R / Player M, fro country L
3/9
official then and never changed his status in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS), forcing him “to inactivity until the end of his contract”.
10.
Despite having been invited by FIFA to provide its final position to the present
matter, the Respondent did not answer.
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 1 July 2010. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the
matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008 and 2012 editions of the Procedural
Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1. in combination
with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2012) the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment–related dispute with an international
dimension between a player from country R and a club from country L.
3.
In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may
adjudicate in the present dispute which value does not exceed CHF 100,000.
4.
Subsequently, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the FIFA Regulations
should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he
referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009, 2010 and 2012), and, on the
other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 1
July 2010. The DRC judge concluded that therefore the 2009 edition of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
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. In doing
so, he started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the case as well
as the documentation contained in the file.
Player S, from country R / Player M, fro country L
4/9
6.
In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties had signed a
valid employment contract in August 2009, in accordance with which the
Respondent would pay the Claimant a monthly salary of USD 5,000 for the
period of nine months as well as the flight tickets of the Claimant and his
family for the route city C – city P – city C at the beginning and the end of the
contract as well as for the vacation period.
7.
In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant maintains that the
Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment
contract towards the beginning of January 2010 by having failed to remit his
remuneration as from November 2009 and by not releasing the Claimant as a
free agent once the Respondent had already showed no further interest in the
Claimant’s services.
8.
In this context, the DRC judge took note of the letter provided by the
Claimant, dated 12 January 2010 and addressed to Club F, by means of which
the Respondent informed said club about its lack of interest in several players,
among which the Claimant was included.
9.
The DRC judge further noted that according to the Respondent, which rejects
the claim put forward by the Claimant, the employment contract was
terminated by the Claimant on 10 December 2009, when he left the country
without authorization of the Respondent.
10.
In this regard, the DRC judge, first and foremost, highlighted that the
underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim and the arguments of
the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been
unilaterally terminated with or without just cause and, which party was
responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in
question.
11.
In doing so, the DRC judge took into account that, according to the Claimant,
his salaries as from November 2009 had remained unpaid and that also the
flight tickets to which he was entitled to as per the contract, were not booked
or paid by the Respondent. The DRC judge noted that the Respondent has not
contested such particular allegations.
12.
Additionally, the DRC judge took note that the Respondent argues that the
contract was terminated on 10 December 2009, the day the Claimant left the
club without permission and that the Claimant did not contact it in relation to
the relevant flight tickets, the first notice the Respondent received from the
Claimant in this respect being on 30 May 2010, after the contract had expired.
Player S, from country R / Player M, fro country L
5/9
In this respect, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent did not provide
any evidence which could establish that the Claimant could not leave the
country on 10 December 2009. Indeed, the DRC judge noticed that the
employment contract established the obligation for the Respondent to provide
the Claimant with flight tickets “in the middle of the employment contract
(December 2009, January 2010)”.
13.
On account of the above circumstances, the DRC judge established that the
Respondent had no longer been interested in the Claimant’s services by failing
to remit his salaries without any valid reason during a considerable amount of
time and informing him that it had no interest in a further cooperation with
him. Moreover, the DRC judge determined that the Respondent had not
fulfilled its contractual obligations by failing to remit the Claimant’s flight
tickets to which he was entitled to as per the contract. Accordingly, and taking
into account the particularities of the present matter, in particular, the unpaid
salaries, the unpaid flight tickets and the explicit lack of interest of the
Respondent in the Claimant’s services, the DRC judge decided that the
employment contract was unilaterally terminated by the Respondent without
just cause on 12 January 2010 and that, consequently, the Respondent is to be
held liable for such termination of the employment contact without just cause.
14.
Having established that the Respondent terminated the employment contract
without just cause, the DRC judge focussed his attention on the consequences
of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive
from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of
contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant
contract.
15.
First of all, the DRC judge reverted to the Claimant’s financial claim, which
includes outstanding remuneration of USD 35,000 for the months as from
November 2009 until May 2010, i.e. USD 5,000 per month in accordance with
the employment contract. The DRC judge recalled that the Respondent failed
to demonstrate that it had in fact paid such remuneration. In addition, the
Claimant asked to be awarded with the flight tickets dated 10 December 2009
and paid by him, in the amount of USD 2,808.59. The DRC judge noted in this
regard that the employment contract provided the payment by the club of
three flight tickets for the player and his family for the period between
December 2009 and January 2010 and, furthermore, the DRC judge observed
that the Respondent had also failed to demonstrate that it had paid the
relevant amount for this concept.
Player S, from country R / Player M, fro country L
6/9
16.
Consequently, taking into account the documentation remitted by the
Claimant to substantiate his claim and the fact that the employment contract
was considered terminated as of 12 January 2010, the DRC judge decided that
the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 15,000
relating to payments due to him for the months of November and December
2009 and January 2010 as well as the amount of USD 2,808.59 corresponding
to flight tickets, in accordance with the employment contract.
17.
In continuation, the DRC judge focussed his attention on the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing
so, the DRC judge firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of
the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular
and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute,
with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of
sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration
and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the
new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of
five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
18.
In application of the relevant provision, the DRC judge held that he first of all
had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a
provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an
amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of
breach of contract. In this regard, the DRC judge established that no such
compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of
the matter at stake.
19.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC judge proceeded with the calculation
of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment
contract until 31 May 2010, taking into account that the player’s remuneration
for the period between November 2009 and January 2010 is included in the
calculation of the outstanding remuneration (cf. no. II./15. above).
Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the amount of USD 20,000 (i.e.
salary as from February until May 2010) serves as the basis for the final
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
20.
In continuation, the DRC judge verified as to whether the Claimant had signed
an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time,
by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income.
According to the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in
Player S, from country R / Player M, fro country L
7/9
the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in
connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
21.
The DRC judge noted that the Claimant had not signed any other employment
contract.
22.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and
the specificities of the case at hand, the DRC judge decided that the
Respondent must pay the amount of USD 20,000 to the Claimant as
compensation for breach of contract.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player S, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club F, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the
amount of USD 17,808.59.
3.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date
of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of USD 20,000.
4.
If the aforementioned sums are not paid by the Respondent within the stated
time limits, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the
aforementioned time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon
request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
Player S, from country R / Player M, fro country L
8/9
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittances are 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:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player S, from country R / Player M, fro country L
9/9