We cannot fail to emphasize that the claim to the arbitrator and the arbitration award do not deal with a cogent right and, in fact, not even a right to remuneration, but rather with the interpretation of an agreement in contract law, perhaps, in tort law. Arbitrator Kraus rejected the Applicant's claim for salary based on paragraph 8(e)(8) of the agreement, and Arbitrator Shimoni did not find it necessary to intervene in his conclusions.
We will further note above necessity that there is no dispute, factually (and therefore determined) and legally (as the clause says); Section 8(e)(8) of the agreement states as follows:
"The full amounts specified in this agreement will be paid by the team to the player on the dates set out in this agreement, even if there is a decrease in the player's fitness and/or if the player does not participate in the activities of the team and/or the association, including training and/or games and/or for reasons beyond the player's control, including but not limited to the generality of the aforesaid in the event of death, illness, injury, accident, Military service, but thatoccurred in any framework and at any time during the period of this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby clarified that the failure to include a player in the team's lineup will be considered as a reason beyond the player' s control" (emphases added).
In other words, the two arbitrators did not "credit" the plaintiff with wages, since Arbitrator Kraus held that the Applicant was entitled to compensation for the Respondent's negligence, and Arbitrator Shimoni was of the opinion that we were not dealing with negligence, but with thwarting. We have also found reference to section 8(e)(5) as well as sections (4(f)(k), (12), tax appeal, to explain the "logic" of the arbitral awards in the aforesaid context.
- We will not ignore any of the respondent's arguments with regard to the absence of the applicant's affidavit, with regard to the "factual background" in the application, or with reference to Appendix G to the application - There is no basis for any claim of fact that was not supported by an affidavit of testimony, certainly when it is claimed that we are dealing only with a legal matter. Against the background of the aforesaid, it is certainly impossible to understand at all the attachment of Appendix G (as argued by the Respondent, p. 10 of the transcript).
[More than necessary, we will clarify that the Amos Judgment - Indeed, an appeal was filed for it, which was deleted, when the proceedings against Hapoel Tel Aviv were suspended].