In Mr. Schweig's case, not only was there no reliance, but Schweig himself made sure that he would not be bound.
In these circumstances, the terms of the agreement should be given binding effect. According to the agreement, he is not entitled to severance pay.
- In addition, Mr. Schweig filed a claim with the Football Association's arbitration institute against the defendants and even received from the defendants the full amount owed to him. There he did not claim severance pay, the plaintiff should have disclosed this in his affidavit.
The case law states that the arbitration institution cannot adjudicate a cogent right and in respect of it it is permissible to file a separate claim to the courts, and the right to stand before us arises, but in a claim where he was represented, therefore, the claim of considerable delay will stand against him, even without a statute of limitations. In addition, as stated, there is a written agreement, which reflects Mr. Schweig's desire specifically and his interests, and which was approved by the competent authority based on its financial significance, it is binding and we have not found any reason or justification to deviate from it retroactively.
For the above reasons, even though there is continuity of seasons as required by law, since he is a Beitar player who has chosen his freedom to move between the teams, it is doubtful whether the condition of "the same employer" is met, so that there is no determination of that employer, nor even with regard to the matter of reliance. In view of a specific compensation provision in the agreement between him and the group, a provision that he desires, and all of the above reasons, the plaintiff Ronen Schweig's claim for severance pay is rejected.
Moti Ohayon
- In his affidavit, Mr. Ohayon claimed the period of employment from 1 August 2003 to 31 May 2006 (paragraph 2 of his affidavit) and demanded severance pay for 3 full years. His employment agreement indicates that he began playing on 15 August 2003. Until 31 May 2004, this agreement was first submitted in his interrogation in the Tribunal and was not attached before (P/1). It follows that the date of the start of his employment in his affidavit is concealed in a written agreement, even though he claimed in his testimony that they began training on August 1.
- Another agreement submitted by him in his affidavit relates to the period from 9 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 (also attached as Appendix B to the claim).
- With regard to the agreement relating to the period 2004-2005, I did not find that it was attached as evidence. Such an agreement was not found in the Budget Control Authority's announcement nor in the plaintiffs' counsel's notices of January 29, 2009 and February 10, 2010, to which he attached all the contracts in his possession in light of the Tribunal's explicit decision to submit all the agreements (dated October 14, 2009 and January 21, 2010). Similarly, an agreement for this period is not attached to the statement of claim or in Mr. Ohayon's affidavit.
- In the notice dated 29/1/09 there is an "appendix to the agreement" bearing the date of 15/8/04, but the content of it does not arise from the employment agreement and it can equally be part of the 2003-2004 agreement to which it was attached and the proof of this is that a similar appendix was attached to the 2005-2006 agreement bearing the date 9/8/05. There is no dispute that the aforementioned plaintiff did not play in 2006. Therefore, as stated, there is no reference to the employment for the alleged period of 04/05.
- The document of the Budget Control Authority states: "1.2 Plaintiff 2 (Mr. Ohayon S.S.)- Copies of all the relevant agreements were sent to the plaintiff's attorney by fax on January 14, 2007, and they are all in his possession."
- In the statement of claim in section 12, it is claimed that his period of employment includes this season (04/05). In paragraph 12 of the statement of defense, the period of his employment is denied, except for the last agreement of 2005-2006. Section 4 of the conventions states: "The periods in which the players played in Jerusalem are those that are recorded in the budget control in accordance with the contract signed with each of them as it appears in the budget control.(My emphasis). In section 1 of the companies, the period of work of each person appears as a company.
- From all of the above, it emerges that the plaintiff did not prove the continuity of work periods in the absence of an agreement for the years 2004-2005. The burden of proof is on him. Therefore, he was not entitled to severance pay due to the last contract in the absence of two consecutive seasons for previous seasons as required for a seasonal employee in section 1 of the Law and as detailed above. In the absence of a contract for the period 04/05, the claim for severance pay is rejected.
- Beyond what is required, the plaintiff claimed that his contract was not renewed in 2006 and therefore he was forced to move to an amateur team, and that he was not informed in advance of the non-renewal of the contract, he was entitled to severance pay. However, in his cross-examination, his entire version was contradicted, and it became clear that his termination of employment was preceded by an unusual sequence of events that were not detailed in his affidavit.
"A. I was interrogated like every team and all the other players.
- Is it true that you are a liar in the investigation?
- The examination was conducted on behalf of Weizmann on behalf of the Association, and the investigation was transferred to the Jerusalem Police to the State Attorney's Office. The case was closed. I would like to submit that the case has been closed by the State Attorney's Office. At the end of the investigation, they found no evidence to bring it up for a hearing, so it has nothing to do with the question. (...).
...