Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv) 21054-09-21 AIRES DOS SANTO ALLYSON – Maccabi Avshalom Petah Tikva – Football Department - part 2

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916Consequences of the Existence of an Arbitral Award

7. 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)As noted in the team's arguments, the parties filed mutual claims with the Football Association's arbitration institution that were heard and decided.
8. According to the precedent used in the Labor Court, cogent rights are not subject to arbitration. The judgment in the case of Leave to Appeal (National) 19063-02-21 Hapoel Ra'anana Football Club - Eli Babaev (March 18, 2025) opened the door to deviate from the precedent customary on the matter.  However, it was determined there that the possibility of allowing the Football Arbitration Institution to discuss cogent rights would be examined prospectively, so that the judgment is irrelevant to our case.
9. This should be said, even if the arbitration award between the parties was rendered without authority, since the plaintiff did not seek to annul it, it is valid and exists - "an arbitration award given without authority can be annulled and not nullified in its essence" (Civil Appeal Authority 7393/16 Naftali Bulge v. Aharon Folman (February 12, 2017)); See also Civil Appeal Authority 4198/10 Haim Ivgi v.  Rachel Tehila Gabbay (December 25, 2012)).  The plaintiff did not refer to the arbitration award in his claim and affidavit.  In his cross-examination, he testified that the arbitration proceeding and the arbitration award were not at all familiar to him (p.  3, paras.  27-28 of the transcript of 21 May 2024; however, later in the interrogation he had reservations about these words).  However, this testimony of the plaintiff is not acceptable to us because it is suppressed testimony and because of the evidence that was submitted together with the arbitration award, such as the plaintiff's statement of claim and his affidavit (Appendices 12 and 15 to Mr. Luzon's affidavit).  On July 31, 2024, the group also submitted evidence for the approval of the arbitration award from a civil proceeding 45794-11-23-11-23 in the Magistrate's Court Civil Case (February 25, 2024) and additional evidence in relation to the proceeding.
10. On April 2, 2025, the Group submitted an update on a judgment given in an appeal against the decision to approve the arbitration award in the Magistrate (Permission to Appeal Arbitral Award 8157-10-24), in which the parties agreed to reduce the sum of ILS 21,260 from each amount awarded in this proceeding, together with interest and linkage differentials from May 2017.
11. quoted from NevoAgainst the background of the aforesaid and based on our general impression, it must be said that the plaintiff's testimony was not reliable in our eyes and was laconic and lacking in cooperation, which led to difficulty on the part of the group in proving some of its claiMs.
12. Therefore, the arbitral award rendered between the parties (Appendix 12 (Interim Arbitral Award), Appendix 16 (Supplementary Arbitral Award). Together, hereinafter - the arbitration award) is valid and exists.

Notice to Employee

13. As stated, the plaintiff claimed that the employment agreement he received was improper. However, the plaintiff did not specify what was wrong with the employment agreement.  This, despite the fact that he knew how to specify in his statement of claim his rights according to the employment agreement signed with him.  The plaintiff did not elaborate on the defects in his affidavit either.  The only place where the plaintiff detailed the defects in the employment agreement with him is in his summaries.  This detail, as claimed in the group's summary, is an expansion of a prohibited front.  The statement of claim is the document that sets the front of the dispute.  When the statement of claim does not specify what is wrong with the employment agreement, the court should not be expected to review the employment agreement and look for defects in it on its own initiative.
14. Therefore, the claim for compensation for an improper employment agreement should be rejected.

Pay slips

15. As stated, the plaintiff claimed that he did not receive pay slips. The group, which denied the claim, attached the pay slips to affidavits on its behalf (Appendix 3 to the affidavit of the group's witness, Moti Luzon).  In this situation, the plaintiff should have presented additional evidence to prove his claim that he did not receive the coupons.  This is in light of the rule that "one who brings out his friend has proof against him." The plaintiff did not refer in his affidavit to the pay slips that the group had produced, even though he received them as part of the discovery and review proceedings (see documents submitted on July 12, 2022) and probably did not mention what defects occurred in them.  In his cross-examination, the prosecutor testified that all the foreign footballers on the team did not receive a pay slip (p.  12, para.  21 of the transcript).  From this testimony we learn that the plaintiff could have proved his claim by inviting one of the foreign players to testify or, at the very least, inviting an Israeli player to testify about the team's procedures in the matter.  The plaintiff did not raise the burden required to prove his claim, not even in order to transfer the burden of proof to the group.
16. Therefore, the claim for compensation for non-payment of coupons is dismissed.

Remuneration for work on rest days and holidays

17. The plaintiff claimed that he worked regularly on Sundays when he was entitled to remuneration as a member of the Catholic Christian religion, and alternatively, on Saturdays.
18. The group, on the other hand, claimed that the plaintiff did not inform it of the day of his rest; that the plaintiff's work week and work period are shorter than he claimed, and that he was employed on the weekly rest days in accordance with the general permit for the purpose of holding soccer matches, so that he is not entitled to additional work pay. In addition, the plaintiff's salary included payment for work during the weekly rest, as is customary in the industry.
19. In our opinion, first, the fact that there is a general permit for employment on the weekly rest days for the purpose of holding soccer matches, does not cancel the obligation to pay remuneration for work on the rest days.
20. On the merits of the matter, two important and relevant rulings were recently issued by the National Labor Court on the subject of the terms of employment of soccer players, the uniqueness of the sport and the customary arrangements for the payment of players' wages:

• Labor Appeal (National) 53292-05-24 G. Football Club Beitar Jerusalem (2001) in a Tax Appeal - Tomer Ben Yosef (December 25, 2025) (Beitar Jerusalem case) in which it was determined that the teams must respect the protective legislation and adjust their employment contracts accordingly:

"The soccer industry poses difficult challenges to labor law, not only in terms of internal judicial mechanisms (see the recent Babayev case ), but also in adapting the working conditions of the players to the provisions of the legislation.  With all the understanding of the difficulties of adaptation that the industry goes through in the process of internalizing the legal situation that stems from the fact that players are employees,[27] there is a difficulty in accepting this position as simply.  Football is not the only industry in the economy that is required to adapt its special conditions to the cogent legislation.  Quite a few of the difficulties that arose in this process can be solved simply in the form of adapting the employment agreements to the requirements of the protective legislation.  There are quite a few legal and simple solutions that will bring about the desired result for everyone: respecting the protective legislation on the one hand; and not exceeding the limits of the teams' budgets on the other hand.  The association would do well to adapt the labor agreements to the requirements of that legislation."

• Labor Appeal (National) 51985-01-25 Football Club - Maccabi Netanya (2016) In Tax Appeal (Compensation) - Daniel Amos (7.1.26) (Maccabi Netanya Case) in which it was determined that most of the compensation of footballers in the professional leagues in Israel is for work on rest days and holidays, so that they are not entitled to work remuneration on those days:

"Even if we look at the agreements with the players through the lens of 'total salary'...  There is a backlog of unique circumstances whose cumulative combination justifies, in this exceptional and extreme case, the provision of the engagement agreements according to which the consideration paid is inclusive: First, the agreements were intended, as stated in advance, mainly to arrange the compensation for work on weekly rest, in such a way that making a separation between the "regular wage" and the consideration for the weekly rest, even though it could have saved the claim, is artificial.  The second...  Maccabi Netanya and Bnei Yehuda behave this way towards all their players...  Third, there is no significance to the increase in the cost of work during the weekly rest whose purpose is to incentivize not working during the weekly rest.  The contract is aimed at working on the weekly rest, the football team cannot decide that it does not play on the rest day.  Moreover, presumably in the Premier League teams, as we are concerned, players of different religions usually play, and in any case the team cannot direct its games so that they do not take place on any of the Fridays and Sundays.  Hence, accepting the claim will not serve the purpose of the Hours of Work and Rest Law to bring about the employee resting during the weekly rest, but will lead to a retroactive increase in the economic compensation only due to the strict implementation of the provisions of the legislation...  Fourth, the acceptance of the claim is also not required in view of the additional purpose of the law, which is a balance between work hours and leisure.  In any case, the actors work for hours that are partial compared to the usual number of hours...Fifth, and although this is not a decisive reason, we are dealing with relatively strong employees who, as a rule, are accompanied by lawyers or agents who take care of maximizing the profits of the players."

21. A review of the circumstances of the case at hand shows that they are no different from the reasons that led the National Court in the Maccabi Netanya case to determine that the players' salaries include compensation for rest days and holidays. The plaintiff also played in the Premier League; Most of the games in which he played were held on Saturday (the team's and the plaintiff's game schedules were submitted as Appendices 6-9); The plaintiff does not allege discrimination against other players; The plaintiff testified that his training lasted only about 2-3 hours; The plaintiff was represented by an agent in his engagement with the group (as appears from Mr. Luzon's testimony in paragraph 7 of his affidavit, which was not contradicted and the employment contract he set for consideration for the agent); It can also be said that the plaintiff's situation as a Christian whose day of rest is Sunday was preferable to that of Jewish players.  This is because most of the games took place on Shabbat and the evidence showed that at least in most cases there were no regular training sessions in the days following a game day, and if there were, they were release drills (see the testimony of Mr. Luzon at p.  8, paras.  25 to p.  9; Mr. Golan's testimony at p.  21, paras.  17-24 of the transcript of 26 May 2025).
22. Therefore, the conclusion is that the plaintiff's salary included compensation for his work on rest days and the plaintiff is not entitled to remuneration in addition to the salary he has already received.
23. In accordance with the ruling of the National Court in the Maccabi Netanya case, when it was determined that the salary included remuneration for work on rest days, the salary should also be considered as including remuneration for work on holidays - "while we determined that Zubas's salary included the remuneration for work on weekly rest, the remuneration for work on holidays, which according to the Ordinance is like remuneration for work on weekly rest, is also included in the salary."
24. Moreover, the plaintiff did not prove that he requested in advance or during his employment to change the holiday days for which he is paid - "Once it is proven that the plaintiff received holiday pay lawfully according to the Jewish holidays and that he never asked to change it, neither le-khatila nor during the course of employment, the claim for holiday pay is dismissed" (Labor Dispute (Jerusalem Areas) 14577-01-18 Muhammad Salman - M.B. Glatt Chicken Lemehadrin Ltd.  (May 3, 2020).
25. Therefore, the claim for remuneration on holidays is also dismissed.

Vacation

26. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the redemption of 28 vacation days that were not accumulated for him at all. The group, on the other hand, claimed that the claim was time-barred because the last month of work was 5/17 and the statement of claim was filed on September 13, 2021.
27. In our opinion, the claim for vacation redemption has indeed become statute of limitations. Beyond that, it should be noted that there is no dispute that the group paid the plaintiff a salary in the months of 6-7/17 even though he did not work.  Even if according to the employment contract the payment should have been made in 10 installments, the payment was actually made in contravention of the contract without the plaintiff objecting, apparently, against the background of the fact that the team paid the plaintiff a higher salary than what was agreed with him (see above a discussion of the claim of offset; see also a similar discussion in the Maccabi Netanya case).
28. Therefore, the claim for vacation redemption is dismissed.

Convalescence

29. The plaintiff claimed that he did not receive convalescence pay at all. The group, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff's calculation was wrong and that he received the convalescence pay as part of his total salary.
30. In continuation of our discussion above, the National Court ruled in the Netanya case that there is room to recognize the stipulation that the player's salary includes all of his social rights as well as convalescence pay:

"It has already been determined that unlike remuneration for overtime work or weekly rest and annual leave (in light of section 5 of the Wages Protection Law) and severance pay (in light of section 28 of the Severance Pay Law), convalescence pay may be included as part of the employee's salary to the extent that the agreement to include it in the salary has been received explicitly and unequivocally.  Admittedly, in our case, the employment contract does not explicitly state the convalescence pay.  However, the employment contract explicitly and unequivocally stipulated that the consideration paid to Zubas includes all of his rights and that he will not be entitled to additional payment.  With regard to severance pay, annual leave, and remuneration for overtime work and weekly rest, this explicit consent is invalid in light of the cogent provisions of the law.  However, when it comes to convalescence pay, explicit consent is valid.  The question is in fact not a question of validity, but of the interpretation of the content of the consent.  In the circumstances of the case, given the industry context whereby Zubas is not entitled to payments that are beyond what is stipulated in the employment contract, and given that Zubas was represented at the time of signing the employment contract, we are of the opinion that Zubas' employment contract can be viewed as an explicit and unequivocal agreement whereby at least any element that can be included in the salary, including convalescence pay, will be included in the salary."

31. As stated, the plaintiff's case is not substantially different from the circumstances discussed in the Maccabi Netanya case - the plaintiff was also represented at the time of his engagement with the team, and it was also stipulated in the contract that the consideration constitutes a total salary for all his social rights.
32. Therefore, in accordance with the above rulings and the aforesaid circumstances, the claim for convalescence pay is dismissed.

Pension

33. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to pension payment. The group, on the other hand, claimed that the plaintiff had already claimed his social rights in the arbitration proceeding that took place between the parties and that a final judgment had been rendered.  In any event, she argued, the plaintiff is entitled to a pension only from the seventh month of his employment, and that his entitlement is in accordance with the average salary.
34. In our opinion, first, a review of the arbitration award (Appendix 16 to Mr. Luzon's affidavit) shows that the plaintiff filed a claim for non-payment of wages for the month of 5/17 only. So this is not an act of court.  The plaintiff is entitled to pension payment, as claimed by the company, from the 7th month of his employment, and in accordance with the pension expansion order, according to the average wage in the economy at that time.
35. In paragraph 12 of its summaries, the group presented a calculation based on the average salary, but an examination of the data shows that this is the average salary according to section 1 of the National Insurance Law [Consolidated Version], 5755-1995. The calculation should have been made on the basis of the average wage in the economy.
36. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation in lieu of pension contributions in the amount of ILS 9,032. (according to 6.5%). 

Severance pay

37. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to severance pay and, alternatively, to contributions to the severance fund in accordance with the extension order. The group, on the other hand, claimed that the plaintiff terminated his employment under circumstances that did not entitle him to severance pay.
38. As for our opinion, the plaintiff is not entitled to severance pay under the law. This was because he refused the team's offer to continue playing another season.  This fact arises from the arbitration award (Appendix D to the defense) in which it was determined that "the player behaved and behaved towards the team in bad faith when it tricked it into thinking that he would play for the team in the 2017/18 season by presenting a representation that his handshake was binding as an agreement, in acceptance, without any comment, the new apartment and in my declaration to Mr. Bornstein." The plaintiff did not address the group's claims regarding the circumstances of his dismissal and the arbitration award.  The arbitration award, as stated, was upheld and the rulings therein create a court action and estoppel on the subject in dispute.  In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff did not prove that the circumstances of his termination of employment entitle him to severance pay.
39. However, the company did not contribute to the severance pay fund and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to contributions, in lieu of severance pay, in the amount of ILS 8,337 (at 6%).
40. The claim for withholding wages and severance pay has become obsolete, and at the very least, it is a complex issue that was also discussed in the framework of the arbitration process between the parties.

Offset

41. As stated, the group raised an offset claim based on the arbitration award it had with the plaintiff and because of payments that the plaintiff had overreceived from it.
42. As to the arbitration award - as stated, the plaintiff claimed a judgment debt of ILS 28,800, estimated at ILS 38,872. In accordance with the agreement of the parties in the process of appealing the arbitration award in the District Court, the amount to be deducted is ILS 21,260.  The team is entitled to an offset.  Therefore, the sum of ILS 21,260 should be deducted from the plaintiff's entitlement.  The amount of the offset will bear the differences in accordance with the law of May 5, 2017 (as detailed in the arbitration award) and in accordance with the ruling in the matter (Labor Appeal (National) 48123-12-16 Shock Tarek - Moshe Shitrit, para.  19 (January 30, 2018)).
43. With regard to the overpayments - this argument is not acceptable to us in light of Mr. Luzon's inconsistent testimony. On the one hand, Mr. Luzon claimed in his testimony that the team had waived the money it had paid to the plaintiff Beitar in the first season, but had not had time to demand a refund from him in relation to the second season because he had disappeared (p.  16, paras.  26-37); On the other hand, he did not know how to explain why the group did not claim the refund already in the framework of the arbitration proceedings between the parties that took place after the termination of his employment; Moreover, Mr. Luzon did not know how to explain the salary that was agreed upon with the plaintiff (pp.  1-4 of the minutes of May 26, 2024).  In the aforesaid circumstances, our opinion is that the group paid the additional payments knowingly and at the very least, and waived its right to receive them back.

Conclusion

44. The group must pay the plaintiff the following amounts:

• He replaced pension contributions in the amount of ILS 9,032. This amount will bear shekel interest as of August 15, 2016 (the middle of the period);
• In exchange for severance pay fund contributions in the amount of ILS 8,337. This amount will bear shekel interest as of August 15, 2016 (the middle of the period).

45. From the above amounts, a sum of ILS 21,260 must be deducted, which will bear ILS interest as of May 5, 2017.
46. Notwithstanding the outcome of the judgment, in light of the precedent-setting nature of the precedent issued in the framework of the judgment in the Maccabi Netanya case, which was given only after the parties submitted the summaries, each party will bear its own expenses.