Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 September 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Zola Majavu (South Africa), member
Philippe Piat (France), member
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
on the claim presented by
the player, X, A,
as Claimant
against
the club, Y, B,
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 30 July 2004, the player X (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) and the
club Y (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) concluded an employment
contract stipulating a validity period of 10 months as from the date of signature.
Furthermore, the contract provided for a prolongation option for two further
years which was to be exercised by the club before 30 June 2005.
2.
In case the option was exercised, the player was to receive USD 90,000 for the
season 2005/2006 and USD 100,000 for the season 2006/2007. Furthermore, the
contract stipulated that the “Club will also provide (paid) 2 returned Airline tickets
from A to B for the period of this contract”.
3.
On 17 May 2005, the president of the club informed the player in writing that the
contractual relationship was to be prolonged until 30 May 2007.
4.
According to the player, he was loaned to the club Z for the season 2005/2006. For
this purpose, the player concluded an employment contract with Z, valid from 20
August 2005 until the end of the national league and cup in the season 2005/2006.
By letter dated 6 July 2006, after the alleged loan, the player addressed the
Respondent in order to receive information regarding the preparatory period with
the club as well as the start of the forthcoming championship, which remained
unanswered. Also the alleged request of the Football Association of A for the
intervention of the Football Federation of B in the present matter remained
without response.
5.
On 21 August 2006, the player lodged a complaint against the club with FIFA. The
player requested that their employment relationship be terminated due to
contractual breach on the part of the club, and that the Respondent be ordered to
pay him his contractual remuneration for the season 2006/2007, amounting to
USD 100,000, as well as USD 4,000 for the alleged purchase of flight tickets.
6.
On 23 September 2006, the Respondent for its part stated that, by request of the
player, the labour relationship in question had been terminated on 11 September
2005, after which he transferred to Z. In this respect, the club presented a
document in the language of B which appears to carry the signature and the
fingerprint of the player as well as the seal of the club along with a further
signature. The translation reads as follows:
“Date: December 11, 2005 (…)
Termination of contract
Player X / Club Y
2
As per the content of article 3-4 of regulation in relation to replacement, and No.
261/5525 dated September 3, 2001, and as per the agreement between: Mr. Q, as
manager of Y,
And
Mr. X
ID Card No. 003657743, issue din A, born on 11/1/1977, as per the contract No. P-L
83-84-210, dated 31 Aug 2004 as a player,
The contract was terminated without any conditions and restriction”.
7.
On 4 October 2006, the player explained that when he had returned to B after his
vacation on 22 August 2005, he had been to a training camp with the club in
Turkey and that, when the team returned to B, the player was informed that he
was going to be sent to Z for the season 2005/2006. Consequently, Y and the
player made an arrangement for this purpose. However, the player denies having
signed any document referring to the termination of his contract with the
Respondent. After the season 2005/2006, the player still considered himself bound
to the club and had not searched for another employer.
8.
In continuation, the club adhered to its position that the relevant employment
contract was terminated in writing on 11 September 2005.
9.
Due to the circumstance that neither the player nor the club appeared to be
interested in maintaining the alleged labour relationship, if any, on 29 September
2006 FIFA advised both parties to consider their labour relationship, if any, as
terminated and to focus on the financial aspects of the dispute.
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 21 August 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 current version of the
Player X / Club Y
3
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). 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 player from A and a club from
Bregarding 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 facts that the contract at the basis of
the present dispute had been concluded on 30 July 2004 and prolonged on 17 May
2005, but that the player’s claim had been lodged with FIFA on 21 August 2006. In
view of the aforementioned, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the
current FIFA Regulations 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 and the
applicable Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber entered into the
substance of the case. In this respect, the Chamber held that, first and foremost, it
had to be established whether the club had indeed breached the employment
relationship, if any, between the parties to the present dispute in the beginning of
the season 2006/2007 and, if so, whether the club was liable to pay compensation
to the player.
6.
For this purpose, the members of the Chamber deemed appropriate to gather an
overview of the events leading to the present dispute. In this respect, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber firstly took due note that, on 30 July 2004, the parties had
signed an employment contract, valid for 10 months, stipulating a prolongation
option for two further years. Without entering into the question as to whether
the unilateral extension option can be considered valid, the Chamber noted that
such option was uncontestedly exercised by the Respondent on 17 May 2005.
Furthermore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that, during the
season 2005/2006, the Claimant had been on loan with another club, Z. Upon
expiry of the said loan, the player had apparently contacted the Respondent in
order to join the club for the upcoming season. However, the player claimed never
having received any response from the club in this respect. On the other hand,
the Dispute Resolution Chamber noted that, according to the Respondent, the
Player X / Club Y
4
employment contract concluded between the parties had been terminated as
early as on 11 September 2005 by means of a written agreement, a copy of which
was presented by the club.
7.
In view of the argumentation put forward by the club, the members of the
Chamber 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 which the club claimed to have put an end to the employment
relationship in question.
8.
In this respect, the Chamber first of all acknowledged that the translation of the
document in question bears the title “Termination of contract”, refers to the
agreement between the club Y and the player X and unequivocally holds that
“The contract was terminated without any conditions and restriction”.
9.
Furthermore, turning their attention to the document in its original version in the
language of B, the members of the Chamber noted that the document appears to
bear, apart from the club’s stamp and the signature of one of its representatives,
the signature as well as the fingerprint of the Claimant.
10.
With regard to the foregoing, the Chamber acknowledged that the player claimed
never having signed any document with regard to the termination of his
employment contract. However, the Dispute Resolution Chamber also emphasised
that the player had never explicitly claimed that his signature on the document in
question was forged or contested the translation of the document provided by the
club, which clearly refers to a contract termination.
11.
As mentioned above, the player had merely affirmed that he had never signed any
document terminating his contract. However, having examined the evidence at its
disposal, in particular the signature of the player on the original version of the
relevant document and the uncontested translation thereof, the members of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber found that they had no alternative but to conclude
that the player had indeed signed a document, by means of which the parties
involved had put an end to the employment relationship in question.
12.
Although not invoked by the player, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was also
eager to refer to the possibility that the player might not have understood the
contents of the document he signed and, in this respect, 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.
Player X / Club Y
5
13.
Finally, the aforementioned considerations led the Dispute Resolution Chamber to
conclude that the employment relationship between the Claimant and the
Respondent had been terminated during the season 2005/2006 by means of the
relevant termination agreement and that, consequently, the player’s claim for
breach of contract by the club and related compensation has to be rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim lodged by the Claimant, the player X, is rejected.
2.
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:
Markus Kattner
Deputy General Secretary
Encl.
CAS directives
Player X / Club Y
6