Organizational Claim (Between Employee and Workers’ Union) (Jerusalem) 3166-07 Ronen Shweig vs. Hapoel Jerusalem Football Club - part 17

"1.  With regard to the players' agreements entered into regarding the seasons of the games that are the subject of the statement of claim:

...

1.5 Plaintiff 5 (Mr. Dahan-S.S.) All relevant agreements are attached.  It should be noted that contrary to what is stated in the statement of claim, plaintiff 5 did not play for defendant 1 in the 1999/2000 season as stated in the statement of claim." Indeed, all of Dahan's agreements were attached to this letter.  (Agreement from 1/8/93 to 31/5/94, 1/2/94-31/5/94, 1/12/93-31/5/94, 1/6/96 to 31/5/97, 1/11/97 to 31/5/97 (C.L.  31/5/98), 1/6/98-5/99 and last 15/8/01-31/5/02).

1. Dahan's affidavit does not refer to this missing season from May 1999 to 8/01, i.e., the 2000/2001 season.  Precisely because of the fact that his contracts were made in an orderly manner and even more meticulously, even during Adv. Ami Folman's tenure as a temporary liquidator - in which the agreements were made with detailed appendices - it is clear that in the absence of such a contract, the deal would not have been in the missing season.  In Mr. Sassi's affidavit there is no specific reference to this season, but there is a general denial of the plaintiff's affidavit and the periods of his employment (paragraph 39 of Sassi's affidavit, paragraph 29 of Yona's affidavit).
2. Mr. Dahan was confronted with a letter from Yair Rabinovich and answered: "And in the end, this season, for the entire season, they only let me train without getting paid...  They said you're training right now, there's no budget at the moment.  It's in the 2000-99 season.  I didn't say goodbye to the team.  Although I didn't get paid, I trained as usual...  Unfortunately, I didn't get paid." (p.  6, paras.  1-11 of 14 October 2009).  His testimony is like a thousand witnesses, and it is not a matter of employment, since no consideration has been determined, even if he felt that he belonged to the group.  Even worse, the court is of the opinion that such information must be detailed in an affidavit that relies in its calculations on a continuous period and claims a continuity of almost a decade.  The absence of any mention in the affidavit of this essential fact that interrupts the continuity impairs the credibility of the entire version.  (See also p.  9, paras.  7-15 in Prov.  ibid.).
3. Since the claim was filed with the Tribunal on 19 December 2007, the claim was in any case statute of limitations with respect to the period up to the contract for the period from 1 June 1998 to 5 September 1999.  This right became obsolete in May 2007, more than six months before this claim was filed.  After that in 2000 there is a break of an entire season.  As for the 2001/2002 season, it is one season after a break of at least one season with the payment of consideration, if not more, and therefore the right to severance pay did not arise for a seasonal employee who requires at least two consecutive seasons according to the law and in the judgment in the Yanai Cohen case above.
4. However, for the sake of caution, his claim that he was fired will be examined.  Mr. Sassi claims in his affidavit that Dahan was a young player who was invested in him and that his departure caused damage (paragraphs 41 and 42 of his affidavit), and also emphasized that the plaintiff left voluntarily for the amount of payment that did not suit his wishes.  Support for this can be found in the special clause in Dahan's contract for the season 01/02, in which it was added in clause 8 that "the team and the player have the option to cancel this agreement after one month, i.e.  15/10/01."In other words, both sides signed this clause.  (Dahan's testimony confirming his signature (p.  10, paras.  8-9, ibid.).  Since Sassy stated that the team had an interest in his retention in view of the investment (see also the affidavit of Mr. Yona, para.  32), the defendant's version that the clause was added to the plaintiff's request must be accepted, who in any case, as it became clear in his cross-examination, was not a player of the team in the previous season as well.  This addition in the agreement with him is also not referenced in Dahan's affidavit.  The witness Sassi was questioned on this issue and testified that Dahan wanted to "go to business, he had a cleaning company and he said he was making more money..." (pp.  58, 20-21) The matter of working in the cleaning company as an employee was approved by Dahan in his interrogation (pp.  9, 16-17).  Mr. Yona was not questioned at all about the circumstances of plaintiff 5's departure.
5. From the totality of the versions in the Dado Dahan case, it appears that the defendants' version is more substantiated, both in written documents and in the coherence of the testimony of the two witnesses in relation to the lack of coherence in the testimony of plaintiff 5, who also omitted material information from his affidavit.
6. Therefore, the burden was lifted by the defendants, even though it was not on their shoulders because Mr. Dahan left voluntarily and was not fired.
7. In these circumstances, he is not entitled to severance pay and this claim is dismissed.

Is the defendant Mr. Yona liable for payment?

1. The basis of the plaintiffs' engagement is found in the written agreements, the importance of which we discussed in the preamble of this judgment.  The parties to the agreements of the various plaintiffs, at different periods, are each plaintiff on the one hand, and on the other hand: Hapoel Jerusalem Group, Hapoel Jerusalem Football Club, Hapoel Jerusalem Football Club, Jerusalem Football Association founded by S.A.D.R., Hapoel Sports Association S.A.D.R.  Jerusalem.
2. Not all of the signatures at the end of the agreement are Mr. Yona's.  In some periods, Adv. Folman is signed as a temporary liquidator, and in others there are different signatures, not all signatures are identical, as the court can identify.  In any event, the identity of the signatory of all the agreements has not been proven, and the burden is on the plaintiffs.  Mr. Yona was not questioned about the signing of the agreements.
3. In Mr. Sassi's affidavit it was written: "However, the person who actually managed the group was Victor Yona" (paragraph 31 of his affidavit).  Mr. Sassi did not say this in such a sweeping way and confirmed that he himself was involved in the management (pp.  54, 10 to 25, p.  57, 14).  The defense confirms that he was the manager of the team in those years, but he claims that he did not personally enter into agreements with them, but rather that they contracted with defendant 2, the Jerusalem Football Association.
4. The plaintiffs claimed that in accordance with a management agreement from 1996 between Mr. Yona and S.A.D.R.  Sport Management in 1995 in a tax appeal, Mr. Yona was financially responsible in relation to everything related to the team, including payment to the players.  Haganah).
5. The Honorable Retired Judge Vardi Zeiler ruled in the judgment of the arbitrator of the opening incentive 5145/06 (P/11) emphasizing that "Agreement 96 (like the second agreement P/1) which was in dispute in the same decision) imposed on the defendant (Mr. Yona S.S.) the responsibility for the repayment of the group's debts in the past and in the future, as well as to release "Sassi" from liability and/or in connection with the group" (p.  2 of the arbitrator's award P/11).  In addition to the various charges that Mr. Yona was charged in the arbitrator's award at the end.  Mr. Sassi testified that Mr. Yona should have returned ILS 2 million to the Hapoel Group.A civil judgment in another instance does not, according to the ruling, constitute evidence in another civil proceeding.In particular, since the judgment indicates that the laws of evidence, etc., were not really preserved, and as the arbitrator said, the parties to the arbitration did not take the written word seriously.Therefore, we will examine Mr. Yona's status in light of what was presented to me.
6. In his cross-examination, Mr. Yona says: "S.T.  My official position at Hapoel Jerusalem is the chairman of the team.  Beyond the official position, it can be said that I was the strongest man in Hapoel Jerusalem.

1. Literally strong
2. Yes, literally. I made and I made contracts, and everything." It is clear from his testimony that according to him a thing was agreed upon, and he was the one who decided.

Mr. Yona also admits that he spent his personal money for the benefit of the group (pp.  47, 18-20), and the bank account was also called Victor Yona Hapoel Jerusalem.  Although this was Hapoel Jerusalem's formal account, it emerges from his own testimony in his cross-examination that there was a disorder regarding the management of the accounts.  In fact, throughout Mr. Yona's testimony, it is clear that there was a mixture between his money and the laborer's money, and that he paid cash and transferred money more and more (see all p.  49 of Peru).