Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 3 October 2008,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Mick Mc Guire (England), member
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
Zola Majavu (South Africa), member
Ivan Gazidis (USA), member
on the claim presented by the player
A, xxxx
as Claimant/Counter-Respondent
against the club
B, xxxx
as Respondent/Counter-Claimant
regarding a contractual dispute between
the player and the club
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 4 August 2005, the player A (hereafter: the player) and the club, B, (hereafter:
the club) signed an employment contract valid as from 5 August 2005 until 1
August 2008 with a monthly salary of USD 2,000 payable at the latest on the 25th
of each month as well as match bonuses of USD 2,500.
2.
The above-mentioned employment contract stipulates, inter alia, that in case of
accident or injury of the player during the contractual period he will still benefit
from all the rights of the employment contract. That in case the player stops
rendering his services to the club without the club’s authorization, he has to
reimburse all amounts paid to him as well as the transfer compensation plus 50%
of the total amount.
3.
On 30 October 2006, the player contacted FIFA and maintained having got injured
during the 2005/2006 pre-season trainings. Moreover, the player explained that on
29 November 2005, he had left to xxxx for recovery with the authorization of the
club and with the aim to return to xxxx on 27 February 2006. However, and since
the club had failed to pay him his salary as from December 2005 as well as the
medical expenses, although, he had tried to contact the club several times, he had
decided not to return to xxxx.
4.
As a result, the player requested the amount of USD 64,000 as salaries as from
December 2005 until July 2008, the amount of USD 1,600 allegedly outstanding
bonus and the amount of USD 3,330 as medical expenses (several receipts dated
between 30 November 2005 until 30 April 2006), i.e. the total amount of USD
68,930.
5.
On 10 May 2007, the club contested the player’s claim and explained that the
player had never got injured during any game, but that he had been suffering of
pubalgy (pubian disease) as from the beginning of the contractual relationship, as
confirmed by the player himself. Moreover, the club explained that during the
Winter break (2005/6) and after having had paid USD 100,000 in connection with
the player’s transfer and with the aim to assist the player, the club had paid him a
surgery in the amount of USD 3,000. Thereafter, the player had requested to
return to xxxx for recovery. The club had paid him a round trip ticket xxx-xxx-xxx
(29 November 2005 until 27 February 2006). However, the player had never
returned and had never tried to contact the club. Thus, the club emphasised that it
had proceeded in accordance with the employment contract as well as with the
internal regulations and thus the player had been suspended for missing the
trainings.
6.
As a result, the club requested that the player should immediately return and/or
pay USD 150,000 as compensation for the breach of contract. The club had
calculated the amount as follows: transfer compensation paid for acquiring the
player’s services, i.e. USD 100,000 plus 50% of this amount.
2
7.
On 17 May 2007, the player emphasised that he had gotten injured somewhere
during the pre-season 2005/2006, however, in his opinion while performing his
duties for the club. During the course of five months pre-season until November
2005, his injury had been severely escalated due to improper diagnostic and
improper treatment.
8.
With regard to the payment of USD 3,000 the player maintained that he had
received the said amount as outstanding salaries, i.e. USD 1,000 October 2005
salary and USD 2,000 November 2005 salary. Moreover, the player emphasised that
since the beginning of the employment contract in August 2005 he had received
from the club the amount of USD 8,000 only (salaries as from August until
November 2005). Yet, the player confirmed that the club had paid him a round
trip ticket xxx-xxx-xxx (29 November 2005 until 27 February 2006).
9.
However, the player again emphasised that the club had failed to pay the salaries
for the months of December 2005, January 2006, and February 2006 as well as the
outstanding bonuses amounting to USD 1,600 and the medical expenses. Thus, in
the player’s opinion the club had breached the employment contract. Equally, the
player emphasised that he had never been informed of any disciplinary
proceedings and that the said proceedings had been based on his absence
between 16 January 2006 until 27 February 2007. He had rather been absent
during the said period with the authorization of the club. The player also insisted
that the club had been fully aware of his contact details.
10.
Finally, the player maintained still being injured and that he wished to continue
his career with another club when he would recover. In order to corroborate his
injury the player provided the following documents: a confirmation from his agent
and a confirmation from a physiotherapist dated 14 May 2007 which stipulates:
“… he is still under treatment, without any expected date for release to perform
physical activities.”
11.
On 25 May 2007, the club stressed that, contrary to the player’s assumption, his
contract had been valid as from 1 August 2005. Thus, he had neither rendered his
services to the club prior to that date, nor had he been entitled to claim anything
for the season 2004/2005, nor could the club have been held liable for any incident
happened prior to 1 August 2005, i.e. his injury/disease.
12.
Furthermore, the club maintained that in accordance with the xxxx law the club
could have only made payments within the xxxx territory. Finally, the club again
stated that the player might well continue his career, however, he had to
compensate the club.
3
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the
matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (edition 2008). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on
30 October 2006, as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the previous
version of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee
and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2005, hereinafter: Procedural Rules)
is applicable on the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 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 2008) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a xxxx player and a xxxx club.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with
art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 30 October
2006, the previous version of the regulations (edition 2005; hereinafter:
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members
of the Chamber started by acknowledging that the club and the player had
signed an employment contract valid as from 5 August 2005 until 1 August 2008
with a monthly salary of USD 2,000 payable at the latest on the 25th of each
month as well as match bonuses of USD 2,500.
5.
Subsequently, the Chamber considered that the player maintained having got
injured during the 2005/2006 pre-season trainings and that he had remained still
injured. Moreover, the player explained that on 29 November 2005, he had left to
xxxx for recovery with the authorization of the club and with the aim to return to
xxxx on 27 February 2006. However, and since the club had failed to pay him his
salary as from December 2005 as well as the medical expenses, although, he had
tried to contact the club several times, he had decided not to return xxxx.
6.
In view of the above, the Chamber took due note that the player requests the
amount of USD 64,000 as salaries as from December 2005 until July 2008, the
amount of USD 1,600 as allegedly outstanding bonus, the amount of USD 3,330 as
medical expenses (several receipts dated between 30 November 2005 until 30 April
2006), i.e. the total amount of USD 68,930.
4
7.
Turning its attention to the club, the Chamber took due note, that the club rejects
the player’s claim emphasizing that the player had never got injured during any
game, but that he had been suffering of pubalgy (pubian disease) as from the
beginning of the contractual relationship, as confirmed by the player himself.
Moreover, the club explained that during the Winter break (2005/6) and after
having had paid USD 100,000 in connection with the player’s transfer and with the
aim to assist the player, it had paid him a surgery in the amount of USD 3,000.
Thereafter, the player had requested to return to xxxx for recovery and therefore,
the club had paid him a round trip ticket xxx-xxx-xxx (29 November 2005 until 27
February 2006). However, the player had never returned and had never tried to
contact the club. Thus, the club emphasised that it had proceeded in accordance
with the contract as well as with the internal regulations and thus the player had
been suspended for missing the trainings.
8.
In view of the above, the Chamber took due note that the club requests that the
player should immediately return and/or pay USD 150,000 as compensation for the
breach of contract.
9.
The Chamber started its deliberations by emphasising that it is undisputed by the
parties that the player had been authorized by the club to return to xxxx for
recovery for the period of time between 29 November 2005 until 27 February
2006, that the club had fulfilled its obligations towards the player until the latter
had left to xxxx as well as that during the period of time between 29 November
2005 until 27 February 2006 the player did not receive any payments from the club
and therefore, the player had never reassumed his duties with the club.
10.
Thereafter, the Chamber turned its attention to the fact that the player had not
returned to the club and that the latter had not made any payment to the player
during his authorized absence.
11.
In this respect, the Chamber deemed that the player should have had returned to
the club by the end of February 2006, as agreed by the parties and, if then still
necessary, he should have set a deadline to the club for the payment of the
amounts due for the period of time of his authorised absence. Yet, the Chamber
considered that the player had not reassumed duties with the club, despite the
club having already paid for his return ticket. Congruously, the Chamber
concluded that the player had breached the employment contract by the end of
February 2006.
12.
Subsequently, the Chamber underlined that, as a general principle, a club is
obliged to remunerate a player, as agreed between the parties, for the period of
time during which he renders his services to the club, i.e. in the present case thus
for the period of time during which the parties agreed upon the recovery of the
player at home.
13.
As a result, the Chamber concluded that the club owes to the player the
contractually agreed payments for the period of time as from December 2005 until
5
the end of February 2006 as well as the justified medical expenses incurred by the
player during the aforementioned period of time.
14.
Therefore, the Chamber considered all documents remitted by the parties as well
as the relevant employment contract and decided that for the period of time as
from the beginning of December 2005 until the end of February 2006 three
monthly salaries amounting each to USD 2,000 as well as medical expenses
amounting to USD 660 were still outstanding. With regard to the claimed bonuses,
the Chamber emphasised that the player had neither corroborated nor specified
his claim.
15.
Thereafter, the Chamber deemed that the conduct of the club needs to be
considered when establishing the amount of compensation payable by the player
for the breach of contract. Equally, the long period of time during which the
player had not been able to render his services due to his injury and/or illness
needs to be considered.
16.
As a result, the Chamber concluded that the claim of the player is partially
accepted since the club had no justification for not fulfilling its contractual
obligations towards the player for the period of time as from December 2005 until
the end of February 2006. Equally, the Chamber concluded that the counter-claim
of the club is partially accepted since the player had no justification for not
reassuming duties with the club by the end of February 2006.
17.
Considering all of the above as well as all the documents remitted by both parties,
the Chamber decided that due to the specificities of the matter at hand the player
has to pay compensation for the breach of contract to the club amounting to USD
6,600 and that the club has to pay to the player the outstanding amounts for the
period of time as from December 2005 until the end of February 2006 amounting
to USD 6,600.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, B, has to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, A, the amount of USD 6,610 within 30 days as from the date of
notification of this decision.
3.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, A, are rejected.
4.
The claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, B, is partially accepted.
6
5.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, A, has to pay to the Respondent/ CounterClaimant, B, the amount of USD 6,610 within 30 days as from the date of
notification of this decision.
6.
Any further claims lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, B, are rejected.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 63 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 the grounds of the
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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives
7