Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-00628
Decision of the
DRC Judge
Passed on 18 November 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Roger Cañas Henao
BY:
Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
FC SHAKHTYOR SOLIGORSK, Belarus
Represented by Mr. Timour Sysouev
RESPONDENT 1:
ROGER CAÑAS HENAO, Colombia
RESPONDENT 2:
FC IRTYSH, Kazakhstan
Page 2 of 8
REF 20-00628
I.
Facts of the case
1. On 16 March 2018, FC Shakhtyor Soligorsk (hereinafter “the Claimant”) and the player Roger
Cañas Henao (hereinafter “the First Respondent” or “the Player”) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter “the Contract”) valid as of 16 March 2018 until 15 December 2018.
2. According to the Contract, the Player had the “position of a sportsman-instructor of 16th tariff
category in staff of the football team” and the Claimant undertook to pay the First Respondent a
monthly gross salary of Belarusian Roubles (BYN) 23,048.
3. According to the Claimant, the Player was absent without a valid reason from his workplace as of
19 August 2018. In this regard, the Claimant held that the Player “did not inform the employer of
the reasons for his absence”.
4. On 14 December 2018, the Claimant confirms it dismissed the Player due to his absence in
accordance with Belarusian law, in writing.
5. On 31 January 2019, the Player and Kazakh club FC Irtysh (hereinafter “the Second Respondent”)
signed an agreement as per which in case of a dispute in front of FIFA or the Court of Arbitration
for Sport between the Player and the Claimant, the Second Respondent would be liable for the
payment of 1% of any amount of compensation due to the Claimant and the Player of 99% of
the compensation.
6. On 1 February 2019, the First and the Second Respondent concluded an employment contract,
valid as from 1 February 2019 until 30 November 2019. This contract was terminated on 1 July
2019 by mutual consent.
7. On 23 August 2019, the Claimant contacted the Player and the Second Respondent requesting
the payment of compensation.
8. On 18 October 2019, the Player replied to the Claimant stating:
“I repeatedly want to note that I’m not agree with your position regarding termination of contract.
Moreover, I’m interested why club orally informed me that I don’t need to come back to the
location of the club and currently when we have several months passed club is trying to collect
from me compensation for breaching the rules of contract. Could you be so kind to clarify me(?)”.
9. In its claim, the Claimant argued that the Player terminated the Contract unilaterally and without
just cause on 19 August 2018 when he left the discipline of the Claimant.
10. In this regard, the Claimant requests FIFA to establish that the Player terminated the Contract
without just cause; and that the Player and the Second Respondent should be jointly and severally
liable for the payment of a total amount of EUR 106,203.02 as compensation.
Page 3 of 8
REF 20-00628
11. In its reply to the claim, the Second Respondent indicated that in January 2019 it made a request
to the Claimant “in regard to the confirmation of the free status of the player” and “in connection
with the try-out of professional football player”.
12. The Second Respondent alleges that on 29 January 2019, the Claimant replied to The Second
Respondent’s letter stating that:
“The player had left the club without permission and the labour contract was not terminate (sic)
in the prescribed procedure, also the club had proposed to reach agreement on compensation
payment to the former player’s club from the player and new club. The compensation is in the
amount of 45,000 (forty-five thousand) USD”.
13. Thus, on 31 January 2019, the Player and The Second Respondent signed an agreement as per
which in case of a dispute in front of FIFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport between the Player
and The Claimant, the Second Respondent would be liable for the payment of 1% of any amount
of compensation due to The Claimant and the Player 99% of the compensation thereof.
14. Subsequently, on 1 February 2019, the First and Second Respondent concluded an employment
contract, valid as from 1 February 2019 until 30 November 2019. This contract was later terminated
on 1 July 2019 by mutual consent.
15. Furthermore, the Second Respondent points out that:
“in clause 37 the claimer states that during the contract period the salary in the amount of
156,723.86 BYN was paid to the player from [The Claimant]. However, [the player] had received
134,000.73 BYN in actual fact according to reference No. 63 dated 16.07.2019. Consequently,
the income amount received by [the player] is EUR 50,587.3 not EUR 59,165.64 as stated by the
claimer. The claimer’s claims for recovery of the additional compensation in the amount of
52,206.41 EUR in the connection with contract termination during the protected period copy the
claim for recovery of additional compensation, which [the player] should pay in the accordance
with sport specific criteria, which is EUR 52,206.41. In this regard, the claimant’s demand for the
recovery of EUR 52,206.41 in compensation for contract termination during the protected period
is unreasonable”.
16. The Second Respondent also claims that the Regulations of the Belarussian Football Association
are applicable to the case at hand and the latter provide for the subsidiary liability of the new club
for the payment of compensation, and not for several and joint liability as the FIFA Regulations.
17. Even though the First Respondent was invited to provide his position to FIFA, he failed to submit a
reply.
Page 4 of 8
REF 20-00628
II. Considerations of the DRC Judge
1.
First of all, the DRC Judge analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, it referred to the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter:
“the Procedural Rules”), as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on
21 April 2020 and submitted for decision on 18 November 2020. Taking into account the wording
of art. 21 of June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and emphasised
that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 in combination with art. 22 of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players, (edition October 2020) the DRC Judge is competent to deal with the
matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Colombian player, a Belarusian club and a Kazakh club.
3.
In continuation, the DRC Judge 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 Player (edition October 2020), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 September 2020, the March 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
4.
With the above having been established, the DRC Judge entered into the substance of the matter.
In doing so, he started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained
in the file. However, the DRC Judge emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer
only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
Within this context, the DRC Judge noted that it is uncontested that the matter is of an
international dimension and that the Parties do no contest FIFA’s competence thereof.
6.
However, due to the unclear wording of the Contract and the role of the First Respondent when
employed by the Claimant, the DRC Judge scrutinised the Contract in order to assess if the First
Respondent shall be deemed as a “player” as required by art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
7.
After careful consideration, the DRC Judge point to the fact that the Contract stipulates that the
First Respondent was employed in the “position of a sportsman-instructor of 16th tariff category
in staff of the football team”.
8.
Furthermore, the DRC Judge observed the wording of the Contract with regard to the Player´s
duties which stipulates that the First Respondent “is obliged to, by instructions of the employer,
the head coach and (or) coaches of the team, do recreation and training centres and take part in
all football games, performances, competition, training assemblies, gatherings, probation periods,
Page 5 of 8
REF 20-00628
meetings, conferences, debriefing of the team games and other sports, training and rehabilitation
events conducted by the employer”.
9.
As a result of the above, the DRC Judge concluded that whilst there is no clear mention of the
First Respondent as a “player”, the description of the First Respondent’s duties with the Claimant
leaves no doubt that it shall be understood in the case at hand that for all intents and purposes
the parties intended to conclude an employment contract between a football player a football
club. Therefore, the DRC Judge decided that the claim is admissible.
10. Once the above had been established, the DRC Judge proceed to analyse the facts and evidence
of the case.
11. According to the description of the facts and the relevant documentation provided by the parties,
the DRC Judge acknowledged that the following important facts are admitted and/or remain
uncontested:
a. On 19 August 2018, the Player left the discipline of the Claimant.
b. On 14 December 2018, the Claimant dismissed the Player due to his alleged unjustified
absence.
c. On 1 February 2019, the First and Second Respondent concluded an employment
contract.
d. On 23 August 2019, the Claimant contacted the First and Second Respondent requesting
the payment of compensation.
e. On 18 October 2019, the Player replied to the Claimant:
i. stating he was orally informed that he did not need to return to the club; and,
ii. asking for a clarification as to the reasons for the termination of the contract and
rejecting the termination of the contract;
f. On 21 April 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim at FIFA against the First and Second
Respondent requesting the payment of compensation for breach of contract without just
cause.
12. From the aforementioned facts, the DRC Judge particularly noted that whilst the Player left the
Claimant on 19 August 2018, as for the evidence provided, the Claimant never requested his
return or warned him about his unauthorised absence. The DRC Judge further noted that four
months later, the Claimant directly and ex parte terminated the Contract.
13. The next point acknowledged by the DRC Judge was that the Claimant contacted the First and
the Second Respondent more than a year after his departure requesting compensation.
14. Moreover, in spite of the Player’s request for clarification in October 2019, as per the
documentation on file, the Claimant failed to engage in any discussion with the Respondents
and the Claimant’s next reaction was to lodge a claim at FIFA, six months after such letter and
one year and eight months after the Player’s departure.
Page 6 of 8
REF 20-00628
15. Based on the foregoing and bearing in mind the ultima ratio nature of the unilateral termination,
the DRC Judge deemed that the Claimant tacitly agreed to the Player’s departure and also did
not provide any explanation as to his allegation to have been told not to re-join the discipline of
the Claimant.
16. In view of all the above, the DRC Judge concluded that the Contract was tacitly and mutually
terminated by the parties and decided that the Claimant’s claim shall be rejected.
III. Decision of the DRC Judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC Shakhtyor Soligorsk, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 7 of 8
REF 20-00628
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 8 of 8