[Compare also: Zoning Plan (National Labor) 3-163/Ned Helsco Israel in a Tax Appeal - Estate of the Late Eli Gal-On et al., 28(1) 066 (1994)]
- Thus, the right, as well as the entitlement to remuneration, which was discussed in the arbitration, is a right subject to arbitration, and the arbitrator's decision regarding the actual non-payment, especially when no wage withholding compensation was claimed there, does not constitute a deviation from the authority that establishes grounds for the annulment of the proceeding [see and compare also other rulings of this court: TB (Tel Aviv) 58922-01-17 Uri Itzhaki - The Netanya Sports and Basketball Promotion Company in a Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (March 23, 2018); SAASH (Tel Aviv) 53107-06-18 SOTIRIS NINI - Maccabi Avshalom Petah Tikva - Football Department (NPO) [Published in Nevo] (2.10.18)].
Moreover, the arbitration award discussed questions relating to the deduction of fines and wage returns, matters in which knowledge of what is appropriate and acceptable in the relationship between a team and a player is more in the hands of the internal judicial institutions operated by the Association.
- The group relies in its request, inter alia, on the ruling in the case of Tev (Tel Aviv) 24483-05-20 Ohad David - Bnei Kfar Iksal for Culture and Sport [published in Nevo] (June 16, 2020), in which it was determined that "as is well known, the entitlement to wages is at the core of labor law and cogent rights. Parties may not condition the right to remuneration. Hence, the arbitrator was not authorized to discuss the question of the plaintiff's entitlement to wages." This is a concise judgment that rejects a request to annul a judgment in which a request to give effect to an arbitration award was rejected, when the circumstances of the case were reviewed only briefly. Therefore, we are unable to derive from it a decree equal to our case, especially since in any case we are dealing with a parallel ruling that does not bind us. This is also true with regard to the judgment in the matter of TB (Tel Aviv) 34603-12-15 Harel Holdings - Hapoel Tel Aviv Football Club in a Tax Appeal - Daniel Amos [published in Nevo] (June 9, 2016), whose appeal was deleted due to a stay of proceedings against the football club, and was not heard on its merits.
- In addition to the aforesaid, it should be recalled that the rule is that in special circumstances, the court may rule that the arbitration award should be left in place, even where the arbitrator ruled in the absence of authority. As held in Civil Appeal Authority 4710/00 Herzl Goshen - Givat Haviva Seminar, 55 (2) 426 (2001):
"The principle that arbitration is not a recognized framework for discussing rights derived from 'protective laws' is not a rigid rule, and special circumstances justify deviating from it. First, the failure of a party to claim the absence of the arbitrator's jurisdiction during the arbitration and the raising of the claim of lack of jurisdiction only after an arbitral award has been rendered will usually be detrimental to him and will thwart his attempt to annul the award (Civil Appeal 816/88 Ma'ale Yosef Regional Council v. Tisra Ltd., [published in Nevo] at p. 130; Civil Appeal Authority 300/89 Valko Construction and Earthworks Company in Tax Appeal v. Eilat Beach Development Company Ltd., [published in Nevo] at p. 516). Second, in arbitration matters, the argument of lack of authority of the arbitrator that arises in the framework of a motion to annul a judgment will be examined against the background of the question of whether leaving the award in place, despite the lack of authority, is liable to cause a miscarriage of justice to any of the parties. In this spirit, section 26(a) of the Arbitration Law states: "The court may reject a request for annulment notwithstanding the existence of one of the grounds stated in section 24, if it is of the opinion that no miscarriage of justice has been caused."