Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 November 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
John Didulica (Australia), member
Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member
Essa M. Saleh Al Housani (United Arab Emirates), member
on the claim presented by
the player, A, X,
represented by Asociación de Futbolistas Xs
as Claimant
against
the club B, Y,
as Respondent
regarding a financial dispute in connection with
an employment contract
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The X player, A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Y club, B (hereinafter: the
Respondent), signed an employment contract.
2.
The Claimant submitted two different copies of this contract: One version in Y,
signed by the player and by B on 4 February 2006, covering the period from 4
February 2006 to mid-May 2006 and stipulating a monthly salary of … 3,875. The X
hand-written version, dated 31 January 2006, was also signed by the player and
the Y club but stipulated a duration of February, March, April and May 2006 and a
monthly salary of EUR 2,600.
3.
On 19 December 2006, the player filed a complaint against B with FIFA. The player
claimed that the club owed him his salary for the month of May 2006 as he had
only received … 400.00. He also requested a copy of the signed salary statement
for April 2006, which he had not received. The Claimant submitted copies of his
salary statements for February, March and May 2006, each of which stipulated a
gross salary of … 3,900.
4.
In response to the Claimant’s claim, B confirmed that it had paid the salary for
April 2006 and that the player had signed the salary statement accordingly. As the
player had left without a closing account and without specifying a bank account,
it had not been possible to transfer his salary for May 2006. For that reason, the
club had asked a players’ agent, C, to ensure that the player received the rest of
his salary. Furthermore, the club declared that the player had not been entitled to
a full monthly salary for May 2006 because his contract was only valid until midMay 2006.
5.
The Claimant then noted that he was basing his complaint on the X version of the
agreement, and that consequently, he was owed a full monthly salary for May
2006, i.e. … 2,630.35 (net). Furthermore, he claimed that he had never authorised
C to receive payments on his behalf.
6.
Afterwards, the Claimant amended his statement and confirmed that he had
received two payments of … 400.00 for the month of May 2006. Consequently, the
club owed him the sum of … 1,830.35. The Claimant submitted a copy of a
payment order from the post office, from which it appears that C did transfer the
sum of … 400.00 to the player through the post office.
Player A / B
2
7.
B also submitted, without any further explanations, a copy of the salary statement
for May 2006 (… 2,630.35), which had been signed on 15 May 2006 by the player
and stipulated that the salary was paid in cash.
8.
In another statement, the Claimant reiterated the comments made in his original
complaint.
9.
With the final statement, B reiterated that it believed that it had completed all of
the payments accordingly and submitted once more a copy of the salary statement
for May 2006 signed by the player on 14 May 2006.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to
deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 18
paras. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. The present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 19 December 2006, thus after 1 July 2005. Therefore, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the revised Rules Governing the
Procedures (edition 2005) on matters pending before the decision making bodies
of FIFA are applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
With regard to the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, art. 3 para. 1
of the above-mentioned Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall
examine its jurisdiction in the light of arts. 22 to 24 of the 2005 edition of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players. In accordance with art. 24 para.
1 in connection with art. 22 lit. b of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment related disputes between a
club and a player that have an international dimension.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation involving a X player and a Y club regarding an
employment-related dispute between the parties.
4.
Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which edition of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred, on the one hand,
to art. 26 paras. 1 and 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2005) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the relevant claim was
lodged at FIFA to the 19 December 2006 and that the agreement was signed on 31
January 2006 and on 4 February 2006, i.e. all after 1 July 2005. In view of the
aforementioned, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the FIFA
Player A / B
3
Regulations 2005 for the Status and Transfer of Players are applicable to the
substance of the present case.
5.
Having established its competence to deal with the matter at hand as well as the
applicable Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber entered into the
substance of the case. First of all, the members of the Chamber proceeded to
gather an overview of the events leading to the present dispute. In this respect,
the panel acknowledged that the player and B concluded an employment contract
for four months. On 31 January 2006 the parties signed the hand written contract
in X and on 4 February 2006 they signed the employment contract in English.
According to the Claimant, he received only … 400.00 for the salary of May and
therefore he claimed the remaining amount of the May salary. Furthermore, the
members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber recognized that the player requested
a copy of the signed salary statement for April 2006, which he had not received.
6.
On the other hand, the members of the Chamber took note of the allegations of
the Y club B, according to which it was not possible to pay the salary directly to
the player because he left without a closing account and without specifying a
bank account. The Y club had then asked a players’ agent, C, to ensure that the
Player received the rest of his salary. Furthermore, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber also took note of the explanation of the Y club that the Player had not
been entitled to a full monthly salary for May 2006 because his contract was only
valid until mid-May 2006.
7.
In continuation, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged
that the player based his claim on the X version of the employment contract. In
addition he declared that he never gave an authorization to the agent C to
receive any moneys in his name. Finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
recognized that the player adjusted his claim to the amount of … 1,8030.35
because he confirmed having received twice … 400.00 from the Y club.
8.
With the final statement from the Y club, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
perceived that B submitted a copy of the salary statement for May 2006 (…
2,630.35), which had been signed by the Claimant on Mid-May and declared later
that all financial obligations regarding the Claimant have been fulfilled.
9.
In view of all the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber observed first of all that
the Y club was of the opinion that it paid the salary for May 2006 and for
substantiating it, the Respondent submitted a by the player signed copy of the
salary statement for May 2006. Furthermore, the members of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber also recognized that the Y club declared then in a
contradiction to the above that it was not possible to pay the salary for May 2006
Player A / B
4
to the player because he had already left to X and therefore the Y club had to
mandate the players’ agent, C.
10.
On the other hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber took note from the
information that the signed salary statement stipulated that the salary was paid in
cash to the player. In this respect, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
deliberated on the contrary statement of the Y club, according to which it was not
possible to pay the salary to the Claimant because he left Y. Furthermore, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant submitted a copy of
the payment order from the post office, from which it appears that C did transfer
an amount to the player through the post office. The Dispute Resolution Chamber
concluded after evaluating all the above-mentioned contradictions that the player
left Y in Mid-May and that the players’ agent, C, transferred a partial amount of
the salary for May 2006 to the player and that the Y club did not pay the amount
due in cash to the player as mentioned on the signed salary statement.
11.
Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber took into account that on the salary
statement of May 2006 the full monthly salary amount of … 2,630.35 (net) is
mentioned.
12.
In light of all the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber held finally out that, as a
general rule, salaries are debts which are payable to the creditor. This means that
the Y club has to pay the salary to the place where the player is located. In this
case and as mentioned, the player was located in X and therefore the Y club had
to pay the salary to X.
13.
Consequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber finished its deliberations by
concluding that the Y club recognized that the player was in X but it never proved
that it transferred the salary to X.
14.
On account of the above considerations, the Committee concluded that the Y club
B has to pay the outstanding salary of CHF 1,830.35 to the Claimant.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim lodged by the Claimant, the X player A, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, B, must pay the amount of … 1,830,35 to the Claimant within 30
days of the date of notification of the present decision.
Player A / B
5
3.
In the event that the above-mentioned amount is not paid within the indicated
deadline, interest at a rate of 5% p.a. will apply and the present matter shall be
submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and decision.
4.
The Claimant, the player A, is instructed to inform the Respondent, B, directly and
immediately of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to
notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
6.
According to art. 61 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:
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
On behalf of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
General Secretary
Encl.
CAS directives
Player A / B
6