"The fundamental question regarding the relationship between the authority of the internal institutions of inquiry of sports associations by virtue of Sections 10-11 to the Sports Law and Sections 3 and5 of the Arbitration Law, 5728-1968 with respect to claims concerning rights by virtue of the protective labor law, which is currently pending in this court (In the framework of two proceedings that were consolidated: Request for Leave to Appeal (National) 44937-01-21 Hapoel Ra'anana Association - Eli Babayev [Published in Nevo]; Request for Leave to Appeal (National) 19063-02-21 Amit Ben Shushan - M.H. Beitar Jerusalem Football Club (2001) Ltd.), when the Attorney General, the Israel Football Association, the Israel Professional Football Leagues Administration, and the New General Workers' Union were added to the proceeding, and the basic legal questions involved in the issue will presumably be discussed.
According to the existing legal situation, and despite the existence of contradictory rulings in the regional courts, the precedent that cogent rights cannot be clarified in arbitration proceedings is also applied in relation to defendants to whom the Sports Law applies (Application for Leave to Appeal (National) 575/09 Hapoel Jerusalem Football Club - Ronen Schweig [published in Nevo] [Nevo] (15 December 2009); Labor Appeal (National) 791/05 Doron Katz - Roy Sapir [published in Nevo] (4 May 2006); Request for Leave to Appeal (National) 1504/02 Hapoel Be'er Sheva - Ephraim Zvi [published in Nevo] (5 November 2002); for the application of this ruling recently, see, for example, Request for Leave to Appeal (National) 10092-09-22 Muhammad Salah - Raina Brotherhood, Football Heroes Association [published in Nevo] (15 February 2023))."
- In the proceeding before us, the main claim concerns rights by virtue of the protective labor law (including vacation, convalescence, holidays, etc.). Therefore, and in accordance with the case law that stands at this stage, the authority to hear the question of the plaintiff's entitlement to these rights is vested in this court, in accordance with its authority set forth in section 24 ofthe Labor Court Law, and therefore there is no reason to order the dismissal of the claim in limine or its delay. In addition, since the small part deals with the question of the plaintiff's entitlement to a championship grant - i.e., a right that does not originate in the protective labor law, there is no justification for splitting the claim in such a way that part of it will be heard in this court and part in the arbitration institution (Labor Appeal (National) 73/08 Mesika Diamonds Chino and Benayoun in Tax Appeal - Araki [Nevo] (14 September 2009)).
- In the margins, we note that although we found great reason in the defendant's arguments, we are unable to accept his alternative request to stay the proceeding due to the existence of a pending proceeding. This is because the proceedings in the National Court have been ongoing since 2021 and at this stage it is not possible to predict its completion date. Delaying this proceeding until the consolidated proceedings in the National Court are exhausted may cause the proceeding to prolong and cause legal torture, andtherefore it is not necessary to wait for its conclusion.
- As for the request for summary dismissal due to signing the waiver - the rule is that the relief of dismissal in limine is an extreme relief that will be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases (Labor Appeal 408/07 State of Israel vs. Cohen [Nevo] (February 13, 2008)). Accordingly, it was held that even where the chances of aclaim are slim, the plaintiff should not be prevented from clarifying his claim, if there is any chance according to the pleadings that the plaintiff will succeed in his claim (Labor Appeal 734/06 Samar Jahjaha - Arara Local Council [Nevo] (24 June 2008)).
- Labor court rulings do not, as a matter of routine, give effect to a waiver in which the employee waives his rights due to the power disparity between the parties and the protection of the right of access to the courts. Accordingly, the case law set strict conditions that only when they are fulfilled will the waiver be valid, inter alia, that the waiver must be clear and explicit and that the employee has made a conscious and informed decision regarding his waiver of his entitlement (see Labor Appeal (National) 9682-10-22 Farhi Shai Avi v. M. Ver Israel in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (August 15, 2023)).
- The question of the fulfillment of the conditions set out in the case law requires factual clarification and hearing of evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to block the plaintiff from clarifying his claim at this stage, and the defendant's claims will be clarified in the main proceeding.
Conclusion
- The request is denied.
- The defendant will bear the plaintiff's expenses in the sum of ILS 2,000, which will be paid within 30 days.
- A statement of defense will be filed within 30 days. Notice of the date of the hearing will be sent separately.
It was given today, May 23, 2024, in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.