Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 August 2010,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Damir Vrbanović (Croatia), member
on the claim presented by the player,
T,
as Claimant
against the club,
F,
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related contractual dispute
arisen between the Claimant and the Respondent
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 26 February 2008, the club F (hereinafter: the Respondent) and the company A
(hereinafter: the company), signed a contract for the transfer of the player, T
(hereinafter: the Claimant), to the Respondent, establishing a compensation of
5,000 EUR for professional education and training of the Claimant.
2.
On 29 February 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 1 March 2008 until 31 August 2009,
which established a monthly salary of 10,100, among other benefits.
3.
On 11 November 2008, the parties to the contract signed a document drafted in
language L translated as “Cancellation of contract on sporting activities”
(hereinafter: the termination agreement), according to which both parties agreed
to consider the contract invalid since 1 December 2008. In accordance with clauses
2 and 3 of the termination agreement, the parties confirmed that the contract was
terminated with no remaining obligations.
4.
On 17 June 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA
for alleged breach of the contract without just cause. The Claimant affirmed that
the monthly salary of 10,100 was equivalent to USD 4,615 according to the
exchange rate on March 2008 and claimed the total amount of USD 100,150 plus
5% interest as from November 2008, as follows:
-
USD 13,845 corresponding to the outstanding salaries of November and
December 2008, as well as January 2009;
USD 32,305 corresponding to the remaining salaries until the end of the
contract period;
USD 50,000 as compensation for the termination of the contract and for
the damages he allegedly suffered being inactive for half a season;
USD 4,000 corresponding to the expenses incurred by the Claimant
regarding tickets, transportation, board and lodging during the month of
February 2009.
Furthermore, the Claimant requested the imposition of sporting sanctions to the
Respondent.
5.
The Claimant asserted in particular to have played for the Respondent since March
2008 and to have been released for the Christmas break later that year, being
agreed that the Respondent would send him a flight ticket back to country L. The
Claimant further affirmed having tried to contact the Respondent, but since the
latter never answered his e-mails, he had to pay for the ticket to be able to rejoin
the team. Moreover, according to the Claimant, the Respondent never paid him
the salaries corresponding to November and December 2008, as well as January
2009.
2
6.
The Claimant also held that once in the country L, he was allegedly informed that
his services were no longer needed, and that the Respondent allegedly obliged
him to sign the termination contract.
7.
Furthermore, the Claimant held that he “was alone in a foreigner (sic!) and
strange country, without his family and friends, lacking any professional assistance
like a Player Agent, and for those reason the player had no choice and no support
to think on the consequences of signing the termination term”.
8.
In conclusion, the Claimant requested that the DRC disregards the termination
agreement and recognizes the breach of the contract without just cause due to
the non-payment of salaries for more than three months.
9.
In their response, the Respondent rejected the claim, explaining that the Claimant
was represented by an agent, Mr. M, and that it even had to sign a contract with
the company in order to conclude the employment contract with the Claimant.
Therefore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant “was never alone and [that]
he was able to get all professional assistance because he was always represented
by Mr. M”.
10.
The Respondent further asserted that it had fulfilled all its obligations towards the
Claimant up to the date when the mutual termination agreement was signed, i.e.
on 11 November 2008, and had paid the salary corresponding to November 2008.
11.
Finally, the Respondent considered that the requests of the Claimant are contrary
to the contents of the termination agreement.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the
Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 17 June 2009, thus after 1 July 2008. Consequently, the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at
hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
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 2009) the Dispute Resolution Chamber would be competent to
deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with
an international dimension between a player and a club.
3
3.
Once its competence to deal with the present dispute established, the Chamber
analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter.
In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that in accordance with
art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(editions 2009 and 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 17
June 2009 and that the employment contract at the centre of the dispute was
signed on 29 February 2008, the 2008 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.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter and started by
acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation
submitted by the parties.
5.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent
had concluded an employment contract valid from 1 March 2008 until 31 August
2009.
6.
Moreover, the members of the DRC acknowledged the fact that, subsequently on
11 November 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a termination
agreement drafted in language L, by means of each both parties considered the
contract terminated as from 1 December 2008. In particular, the clause 3 of this
termination agreement established that “the player states and confirms that the
club has settled in full with him and the player has no claim against the club”.
7.
In continuation, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Claimant asserted
that the Respondent had terminated said employment contract without just cause
and is claiming compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 100,150
plus 5% interest as from November 2008. The DRC then reviewed the claim of the
Claimant, who held that the Respondent breached the contract without just cause,
by failing to pay him his monthly salaries corresponding to November and
December 2008, as well as January 2009, e.g. for over three months. On the other
hand, the members of the Chamber took into account that the Claimant had
admitted having signed the termination agreement, but alleged to have been
obliged to do so. Furthermore, the Claimant affirmed that he did not entirely
comprehend the consequences of the signing of said document. Finally, the
Claimant requested the DRC to disregard the termination agreement.
8.
The members of the Chamber further acknowledged that the Respondent,
contrary to the allegations presented by the Claimant, deemed that it had not
acted in breach of contract, since the parties had mutually agreed on the
termination of the contract. In this respect, the Respondent held that the player
was always represented by an agent and could get professional assistance.
Consequently, the Respondent considered the claim contrary to the contents of
the termination agreement.
4
9.
The Chamber stated that in view of the contradictory positions of the parties, it
first had to analyse whether or not the Respondent had breached the contract
without just cause and to determine whether or not one of both party to the
contract is accountable for outstanding salaries and/or compensation.
10.
In casu, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to highlight the fact
that the Claimant had signed a document which expressly mentioned that the
Respondent had fulfilled all its obligations towards the Claimant as well as that
the Claimant had no further claim against the Respondent.
11.
In continuation, the Chamber referred to the Claimant’s assertion that he did not
fully understand the consequences of the termination agreement signed by both
parties. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized 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. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 12,
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and rejected the Claimant’s argument that he was
obliged to sign the termination agreement, considering that such allegation could
not be corroborated by any documentary evidence.
12.
In view of the above, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that the question of
whether or not the relevant employment contract in question was terminated
with or without just cause was irrelevant in the present case, since it is obvious
from the documentation on file that the parties mutually agreed on the
termination of the contract in question and the consequences thereof.
13.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber held that it had no alternative but to
conclude that the Claimant had no more rights to claim any compensation from
the Respondent.
14.
Finally, the aforementioned considerations led the Dispute Resolution Chamber to
conclude that the employment relationship between the Claimant and the
Respondent had been mutually terminated by means of the relevant termination
agreement and that the parties of the dispute had agreed on the terms of this
termination. Consequently, the Claimant’s claim for breach of contract by the
Respondent and related compensation has to be rejected.
*****
5
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The claim of the Claimant, T, is 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 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl.: CAS directives
6