.....
There is no dispute about the binding validity of the provisions of the law and the regulations enacted by virtue thereof, but these provisions cannot stand in contrast to the rights given to the employee in labor law that protects against his employer. It is inconceivable that cogent rights that cannot be overcome by consent, and in respect of which the labor courts have exclusive jurisdiction, should be clarified within the framework of an internal "arbitration institution" of one sports association or another.
....
An examination of the purpose of labor law and protective legislation against the purpose of the Sports Law clearly leads to the conclusion that the appropriate place to discuss workers' rights in the field of protective law is the labor court and not the judicial institutions of the sports associations. This conclusion does not detract from the important role of the internal judicial institutions of the sports associations, which continue to have authority in many areas of activity beyond protective labor law. There can therefore be no doubt that in the 'contest' between the jurisdiction of the labor courts and the jurisdiction of the internal judicial institutions of the judicial unions, the labor court has the upper hand in all matters relating to the clarification of claims originating in protective labor law." (Emphasis is not in the original - p. 40)
(See also Leave to Appeal 575/09 Hapoel Jerusalem Football Club v. Ronen Shweig [published in Nevo] (15 December 2009).
- As stated, in the matter before me, the plaintiff's claim deals with non-payment of wages in accordance with the agreement between the parties, the absence of pension provisions, non-payment of vacation redemption, as well as compensation for withholding wages and failure to prepare pay slips in accordance with the law. A large part of these rights originate in the protective laws of labor law, and therefore, in accordance with the case law, they must be clarified in the labor court. Although the component of the claim for wage differentials, which were not paid in accordance with the employment agreement, may be arbitrable, since the bulk of the claim deals with non-payment of cogent rights, I have not found that it is necessary to order a split of the hearing, since this would impair the effectiveness and coherence of the hearing (the Yahalomi case).
- With regard to the ruling of the Honorable Justice Yafit Zalmanovich Gissin in the Grinbaum case, I have not found a way to draw a conclusion from this ruling to the matter before me. Indeed, there is no dispute that the arbitration institution of the Football and Basketball Association, each in its own field, has knowledge and expertise in its particular field. The legislature gave its opinion to this and determined in sections 10 and 11 of the Sports Law, 1988 that disputes in matters regulated by law, inter alia, in the matter of "wages and payments", are delegated to the internal judicial institutions established by virtue of the law.
- In the Grinbaum case, the claim revolved around various components of the claim, such as the playoff qualification grant, and therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the main claim was not rights by virtue of the protective labor law.
- In our case, since the bulk of the claim revolves around cogent rights that cannot be submitted to arbitration, in the tension between the provisions of the Sports Law and the plaintiff's employment agreement and the prevailing rulings in the labor courts, I am of the opinion that the latter has the upper hand and therefore the motion should be dismissed.
- In the margins, I will note that with regard to the claim regarding the fear of contradictory rulings, a perusal of the statement of claim that was attached shows that the plaintiff was right. These are two proceedings whose cause is different, and therefore there is no substance to the defendant's claim. Moreover, in the defendant's motion it was noted that the case was set for an early hearing at the Arbitration Institute on August 9, 2017, but until that date no notice of update had been submitted in relation to this proceeding, and although the defendant was given the right to respond to the plaintiff's response, she chose not to take advantage of it.
Conclusion
- For all the reasons detailed above, the request for a stay of proceedings is denied.
- The defendant will file a statement of defense within 30 days.
- The expenses of the application will be taken into account at the end of the process.
Given today, September 3, 2017, in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.