In the summaries of its arguments, the Respondent also added that a review of the judgments regarding a labor dispute (Tel Aviv) 70645-11-16 Itay Grinbaum v. Bnei Ramat Gan Basketball Department (published in Nevo, January 29, 2017) and Arbitration Claims (Azori Hay) 8821-09-16 Moshe Mishalov v. Hapoel Acre Football Club (published in Nevo, June 13, 2017) show that the approach of the courts is to grant broad powers to the arbitration institutions of the sports associations in view of their unique nature. This is in contrast to the approach presented in the Amos case.
- The Applicant is precluded from requesting the cancellation of the arbitration award for the reason given after the date, since he did not give notice to the arbitrator in advance as required by section 26(c) of the Arbitration Law. Moreover, this claim of the Applicant is lacking in good faith, since the Applicant himself caused many delays in the arbitration proceeding (he did not submit affidavits of competent testimony on his behalf on the dates set for this, submitted the summaries on his behalf late, did not appear with one of his witnesses to the scheduled hearing, thus causing the postponement of the hearing, and did not notify the arbitrator that he was waiving his right to submit summaries of reply and thus caused a delay in rendering the arbitration award).
- All of the Applicant's claims relating to the arbitrator's lack of authority or the fact that he did not discuss the grounds brought before him are classic appeals, which attack the arbitration award itself and the arbitrator's legal and factual decisions.
Moreover, it appears that according to the Applicant's version, the arbitrator's authority is contingent on the outcome of the arbitrator's decision, and if the arbitrator had ruled in his favor, the Applicant would not have claimed that it was a lack of authority.
- The arbitrator discussed and decided each of the issues placed before him, while reasoning his decision.
- The arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear the matter of the pension deposits, as it is part of the contractual relationship between the parties and relates to the termination of their legal relationship. The arbitrator's decision in this matter was correct in light of the evidence presented and the legal situation, and even the deduction of the amount that the Respondent was found owed to the Applicant from the sums that she overpaid him is lawful and consistent with the provisions of section 25(b) of the Wages Protection Law.
- The discussion of the validity of the appendix and the payments deriving from it is also within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, since this is a clear contractual issue that is entrusted to the arbitrator's authority by virtue of section 2(b) of the Arbitration Institute's Regulations. The Applicant's arguments in this context are appealable and depend on the outcome. The Respondent added, beyond what is necessary, that the arbitrator's decisions in this matter were just and consistent with the law and the evidence, since the Appendix is a manifestly illegal contract that was hidden from the eyes of the Budget Control Authority with the consent of both parties (and was even concealed by the Applicant at the beginning of the arbitration proceeding, when he refrained from presenting the Appendix despite the Respondent's request).
- The Applicant's arguments regarding the disciplinary proceeding and the denial of his salary due to the fine imposed on him are also clear appeals. The issue of the applicant's salary and the issue of his suspension are an integral part of the contractual relationship between the parties, and are within the scope of the arbitrator's authority. The arbitrator's ruling on this matter was even just, in light of the severity of the applicant's actions for which the fine was imposed on him, and in light of the disciplinary proceeding, in which the applicant was given a proper opportunity to defend himself.
- The Applicant did not show in his statements how the arbitrator's alleged disregard of the "confession of a litigant" and the payments made by the Respondent to the Applicant after the filing of the claim constitutes a deviation of authority or any other ground for cancellation. Those payments were made on time and paid to the applicant together with the other players of the team, and there is no connection between their payment and the filing of the claim.
- The Applicant's argument that the arbitrator did not discuss the claim of mental anguish that was allegedly caused to him should be rejected, since the arbitrator discussed and decided this issue and rejected it in the absence of evidence on the matter, and all of the Applicant's claims in this matter are appealable.
- The arbitration award does not contradict any law or rule of the Supreme Court or even the provisions of the Regulations, and in any event, even if there were such a contradiction, it would not invalidate the arbitration award, since the rule is that an error in an arbitration award does not constitute grounds for its annulment. The arbitration award is based on the evidence and the existing legal situation, and in any event, even if there were defects in the arbitration award, they do not constitute grounds for annulment under sections 24(9) and (10) of the Arbitration Law, which are reserved for extreme and rare cases.
- Even if the applicant had succeeded in proving that there is some cause for annulment, there is no reason to cancel the arbitration award, since the applicant was not caused a miscarriage of justice. This is in accordance with section 26(a) of the Arbitration Law, and the rule according to which a court is authorized to approve an arbitration award despite the existence of a cause of annulment if no miscarriage of justice has been caused, even when we are dealing with issues that an arbitrator cannot adjudicate by their very nature.
Discussion and Decision -
- From the very outset, we will note that from reading the Applicant's arguments as detailed in the application, and as he reiterated them in the summaries of his arguments, the clear impression is created that we are dealing with an appeal against the arbitrator's conclusions and the results of the arbitral award, and not with a request to set aside an arbitration award according to the grounds for annulment listed in section 24 of the Arbitration Law. The Applicant elaborated on the factual level, elaborating mainly on the circumstances of the signing of the appendix and the intentions of the parties, the events that preceded the disciplinary proceeding and the correctness of its outcome, and the respondent's attempts to cause him to leave the group, as it were, and also expanded on the arguments regarding the legal interpretation that should be given to those events. In addition, the Applicant insisted on the existence of a full evidentiary proceeding that includes the examination of witnesses, while in the examination of the witness on behalf of the Respondent, the Applicant's counsel also focused on factual issues regarding the Group's undertaking to return to the Applicant the sum of ILS 25,000 that it paid to the Maccabi Tel Aviv Group, the circumstances of the signing of the Appendix and the failure to transfer it to the approval of the Budget Control Authority, the non-deposit and non-release of the pension funds to the Applicant, and the circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding and the imposition of the fine on the Applicant.
The testimony of the applicant himself also indicates that the main point of his request relates to the results of the arbitration award, and not to the proper conduct of the arbitration proceeding: