A mistake in the interpretation of the substantive law and its application in practice does not establish grounds for annulment of the award even when the arbitrator is obligated by the arbitration agreement to rule in accordance with the substantive law. Such an error does not constitute a deviation from authority even for the purpose of annulment of the award under section 24(3) of the Law..."
[Civil Appeal Authority 8941/06 Haifa Municipality v. B.M. Karfis Dado in a Tax Appeal (published in Nevo, November 4, 2009)]
- It should also be noted at the outset that the precedent according to which a court does not intervene in the content of an arbitration award is even more valid when it comes to a dispute concerning the relationship between an athlete and his team, for which it has long been determined that it has unique characteristics, which are different from the ordinary relationship between an employee and his employer.
The legislature itself recognized the uniqueness of the field of sports, and ordered in sections 10 and 11 of the Sports Law the establishment of internal judicial institutions of each association or sports association, which would have "the exclusive authority to discuss and decide matters related to activity within the framework of an association or association", including matters of "wages and payments to athletes" expressly listed in section 10 of the law. Therefore, with regard to the relationship between an athlete and his team, this is not an ordinary case of an arbitration agreement to which the parties have chosen to subject their relationship, but rather a statutory mandatory arbitration.
Accordingly, we accept the approach according to which an expansive interpretation should be adopted that gives maximum possible validity to an arbitration award given by the arbitration institutions of the sports associations, which have the required knowledge and expertise in this field [Civil Appeal Authority 2186/12 Moshe Amar v. Maor Malikson (published in Nevo, May 20, 2013)]. Regarding the uniqueness of the field of sports and the status of the arbitration institution in this field, see the comprehensive judgment of my esteemed colleague Judge Yafit Zalmanovich-Gissin inLabor Dispute (Tel Aviv) 70645-11-16 Itay Grinbaum v. Bnei Ramat Gan Basketball Department, (published in Nevo, January 29, 2017)].
- Having said this, we will turn to an examination of the grounds for cancellation claimed by the Applicant, while paying attention to the narrow scope of criticism granted by section 24 of the Arbitration Law, and in particular when we are dealing with a dispute originating in the world of sports.
Annulment of the arbitral award on the ground that it was given without authority - Section 24(3) of the Arbitration Law
- The Applicant grouped most of his arguments under the umbrella of the ground for annulment listed in section 24(3) of the Law, which states that the Tribunal may annul an arbitral award if it finds that "the arbitrator acted without authority or exceeded the powers granted to him under the arbitration agreement".
However, as stated, an examination of the applicant's arguments reveals that these are in fact mostly appealing claims, which the applicant tries to dress up under the guise of exceeding authority. The Applicant's main argument in this context, which is repeated in relation to the various components of the claim, is that the very fact that the result reached by the arbitrator is contrary to the result required by the law and the case law (as interpreted by the Applicant) constitutes a deviation from authority. However, as stated at the outset, the court will not be required to argue for annulment that is in essence an error in the judgment.
- Among the many arguments raised by the Applicant under this ground, we found only one argument that fits the accepted interpretation of lack of authority, namely the claim that the arbitrator was not authorized to adjudicate the rights deriving from the Cogent Protective Legislation, both with respect to the pension deposits and with respect to the denial of salary for a fine imposed on the Applicant.
- Section 3 of the Arbitration Law, entitled "Exception to an Agreement", states:
"There is no validity to an arbitration agreement on a matter that cannot serve as the subject of an agreement between the parties."