We found it to be emphasized in this matter that the right to wages itself was not in dispute, and the arbitrator's determination referred to the right of offset by virtue of the disciplinary proceeding only. It should also be emphasized that this was a salary that exceeded the minimum wage many times over, and that on the other hand, the arbitrator ruled that the applicant was paid in excess of ILS 6,147 (ILS 8,469-2,322).
- If so, on the basis of all of the aforesaid and that no miscarriage of justice has been caused that justifies our intervention, his conclusion is that all of the Applicant's arguments for annulment of the arbitration award should be rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under section 24(3) of the Arbitration Law.
Cancellation of the arbitral award for reasons given after the date - Section 24(8) of the Arbitration Law
- As to the Applicant's argument that the entire arbitration award should be cancelled for the reason that it was given after the expiration of the time allotted for the rendering of an arbitration award under the Arbitration Law, it is also liable to be rejected, since it does not meet the requirements of the law, and is even tainted by bad faith.
- Section 26(c) of the Arbitration Law states that:
"No argument shall be heard by a party that the arbitration award was given untimely, unless he reserved for himself, in written notice to the arbitrator prior to the award, the right to make such claim."
- The written requirement in this context is not a purely procedural requirement, and is also intended to prevent situations in which a party will abuse the grounds for annulment in order to bring about the annulment of an arbitration award whose results are not to his liking. Therefore, the litigant is required to prove that the time factor was important to him in real time, by giving written notice to the arbitrator. A litigant who continued to take part in the arbitration proceeding after the deadline for granting it had passed, without expressing a grievance about the continuation of the proceedings, will be considered to have expressed his consent to the extension of the arbitration proceeding [see Civil Appeals Authority 10673/02 Giora Mahler Construction Works in a Tax Appeal v. Yael Cohen (published in Nevo, January 6, 2005); Ottolenghi, at p. 1082].
- The Applicant did not claim, and in any case did not prove, that he gave the arbitrator written notice prior to the rendering of the arbitral award stating that he reserved his right to raise this claim, or that he had expressed a grievance about the continuation of the proceedings in any other manner, and his entire claim in relation to this ground for cancellation was argued in vague and without reasoning.
It should also be noted that this argument also raises serious doubts as to the good faith of the Applicant, who did not contradict the Respondent's claims that he himself was responsible for a significant part of the delay on the date of delivery of the arbitration award.