Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 January 2020,
in the following composition:
Om ar Ongaro (Italy ), Deputy Chairman
S tefano S artori (Italy ), member
Jos é Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Eddi Gabriel Hernandez Padilla, Honduras,
represented by Mr Alfonso Leon Lleo
as Claimant
against the club,
Zobahan FC, IR Iran
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On an unspecified date, the Honduran player, Eddi Gabriel Hernandez Padilla
(hereinafter: Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract)
with the Iranian club Zobahan FC (hereinafter: Respondent), valid as from 22 June 2018
until 31 December 2018.
2.
In accordance with Article 3 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total amount
of USD 102,000, as follows:
a)
USD 17,000 on 23 July 2018;
b)
USD 17,000 on 23 August 2018;
c)
USD 17,000 on 23 September 2018;
d)
USD 17,000 on 23 October 2018;
e)
USD 17,000 on 23 November 2018;
f)
USD 17,000 on 31 December 2018.
3.
On 14 August 2019, the Claimant informed the Respondent in writing that a total
amount of USD 34,000, corresponding to the monthly salaries due on 23 November 2018
and 31 December 2018 respectively, were still outstanding, providing the Respondent
until 26 August 2019 to remedy the default.
4.
On 26 August 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for outstanding
remuneration, requesting the amount of USD 34,000 corresponding to the monthly
salaries due on 23 November 2018 and 31 December 2018 respectively, plus 5% interest
p.a. over said amount as from the respective due dates.
5.
The Claimant further requested that the Respondent pay the procedural costs.
6.
In reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent held that it had complied with all its
contractual obligations, and the no amounts were outstanding to the Claimant.
7.
Firstly, the Respondent referred to the four payment confirmations it submitted, and
argued that it made the following payments the Claimant:
a)
USD 17,000 on 28 July 2018;
b)
USD 17,000 on 1 October 2018;
c)
USD 17,000 on 3 November 2018;
d)
USD 34,000 on 12 December 2018.
8.
Furthermore, the Respondent stated that on 12 December 2018, the Claimant signed a
“Payment Clearance”, by which it terminated the employment relationship and which
inter alia stipulated that he has “fully received each and every part of the salary payment
of my contract […] and all debts of the [Respondent] to me have been totally paid”.
Player Eddi Gabriel Hernandez Padilla, Honduras / Zobahan FC, IR Iran
Page 2 of 6
9.
By means of his replica, the Claimant referred to the “Payment Clearance”, and
contested having signed said document, arguing that said signature was forged.
10.
Moreover, the Claimant held that “said sort of waiver by the employee at the time of
entering into an allegedly legitimate termination agreement is forbidden under Swiss
law, as the [CAS] duly reminded in [para. 67 of] CAS 2016/A/4852”.
11.
As such, the Claimant reiterated his request of outstanding remuneration in the amount
of USD 34,000, but slightly amended his specification of claim, as follows:
a)
USD 17,000 as “outstanding payments stipulated in the Employment Contract”;
b)
USD 17,000 as “an additional penalty […] over the Respondent as per having
forged a document”.
12.
In response to the Claimant’s additional comments, the Respondent highlighted that in
the CAS award referred by the Claimant, “the employer terminates the contract with the
employee unilaterally and prior to the term of the contract. However, in the current
case, the parties enter into a mutual termination before the end of the contract term or
in other words the two sides have ended the contract before the end of the contract”.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
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 26 August 2019. Taking
into account 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), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules
is applicable to 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 2019), 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 Honduran
player and an Iranian 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 Player, and considering that
the present claim was lodged on 26 August 2019, the June 2019 edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
Player Eddi Gabriel Hernandez Padilla, Honduras / Zobahan FC, IR Iran
Page 3 of 6
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the
Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the
arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber
emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments
and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the
matter at hand.
5.
Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances
surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well as the documentation
on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which
any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
6.
First of all, the DRC acknowledged that the parties had signed an employment contract,
valid as from 22 June 2018 until 31 December 2018.
7.
Moreover, the DRC noted that on 26 August 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim against
the Respondent claiming outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 34,000.
8.
In continuation, the Chamber noted that, for its part, the Respondent argued that no
amounts were outstanding to the Claimant, referring to the alleged four payments
made to the player in the total amount of USD 85,000 (cf. I.7), as well as the document
entitled “Payment Clearance”, by means of which the Claimant allegedly acknowledged
that the employment contract was terminated on 12 December 2018 and by means of
which he allegedly acknowledged having received “each and every part of the salary
payment of of my contract […] and all debts of the [Respondent] to me have been totally
paid” (cf. I.8).
9.
However, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant contested having signed the
document entitled “Payment Clearance”, arguing that said signature was forged.
10.
Given the above, the Chamber established that the primary issue at stake is to determine
as to whether the matter was indeed amicably settled between the parties by means of
the “Payment Clearance”and thus, whether the Claimant had consequently waived his
right to claim outstanding remuneration and compensation vis-à-vis the Respondent.
11.
In this regard, the DRC elucidated that all the payment confirmations provided by the
Respondent contained both the Respondent’s and the Claimant’s signature, as well as
the Claimant’s alleged fingerprint. Moreover, the Chamber referred to the document
entitled “Payment Clearance”, and acknowledged that said document also included the
Claimant’s signature and fingerprint.
Player Eddi Gabriel Hernandez Padilla, Honduras / Zobahan FC, IR Iran
Page 4 of 6
12.
In continuation, the Chamber determined from the Claimant’s replica that he did not
dispute having received the amount of USD 85,000, as stipulated in the four payment
receipts (cf. I.7). As a result, the DRC did not call into question the validity and
authenticity of the payment receipts.
13.
Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber took into consideration the Claimant’s
comments regarding the “Payment Clearance”, arguing that he never signed said
document.
14.
In this respect, and in relation to the argument of the Claimant that he did not sign the
document entitled “Payment Clearance”, the Chamber recalled that according to the
legal principle of the burden of proof, any party claiming a right on the basis of an
alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
15.
In this context, the DRC was of the opinion that no convincing documentation, or any
form of evidence, was provided by the Claimant, which could support his allegation that
he did not sign the document entitled “Payment Clearance”. As such, the members of
the Chamber, after making reference to art. 12 par. 3 and par. 6 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry
the burden of proof and the evidence shall be considered with free discretion
respectively, concluded that the Claimant did not prove beyond doubt that the
Respondent forged the Claimant’s signature on the above-mentioned document.
Consequently, the DRC decided that the Claimant’s allegations in this regard cannot be
accepted.
16.
Therefore, the DRC unanimously agreed that it saw no reason to question the
authenticity and/or validity of the document entitled “Payment Clearance”.
17.
In light of all of the above, and in particular bearing in mind the fact the DRC concluded
that the document entitled “Payment Clearance” was valid, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber decided that the Claimant had waived his rights to claim any financial benefits
and that, as a result, it must reject the claim put forward by the Claimant in its entirety.
Player Eddi Gabriel Hernandez Padilla, Honduras / Zobahan FC, IR Iran
Page 5 of 6
III.
Decision of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
The claim of the Claimant, Eddi Gabriel Hernandez Padilla, is rejected.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the
DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
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). 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. 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:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player Eddi Gabriel Hernandez Padilla, Honduras / Zobahan FC, IR Iran
Page 6 of 6