According to the plaintiff, the argument that determining the existence of an employment relationship between the players and the sports clubs entails imposing high costs on the latter, which will eventually lead to the extinction of amateur football in Israel. According to him, this is nothing but an addition of a few hundred shekels a month to the club.
After reviewing the existing case law, the plaintiff reaches the conclusion that the determination that there was an employment relationship between the plaintiff and Hapoel Katamon is consistent with it, and at the very least, does not contradict it. In view of all of the above, the plaintiff is of the opinion that the claim should be accepted.
- According to the Mossad, the claim should be dismissed both on the grounds that the plaintiff was unable to prove that there was an employment relationship between him and Hapoel Katamon, and because the plaintiff cannot be attributed the status of a volunteer under section 287 of the Law, since he does not meet the conditions of the section.
According to the Mossad, no employment contract was signed between the plaintiff and the group, and it was even clear from the testimonies that there was no intention to sign an employment contract with the plaintiff. According to the Institute, the consideration promised to the plaintiff at a maximum rate of ILS 700 per month was intended to reflect reimbursement of expenses and not wages. It was further clarified that in our case, the subordination test and the integration test were not met, since the team operated as an amateur team, so that the level of commitment of the players, including the plaintiff, to it was low. The team conducted itself with the knowledge of the limited commitment of the players to it, among other things, by registering a relatively high number of players. Hapoel Katamon also did not report to the tax authorities and the institution the existence of an employment relationship with the plaintiff. According to the Mossad, all of this indicates that there was no employment relationship between the plaintiff and Hapoel Katamon. To this must be added the fact that the accident occurred during the selection period even before a decision was made whether to employ the plaintiff, so that the relationship between the parties could not not have developed into an employment relationship. Regarding the claim regarding the financial burden that will be imposed on sports clubs following the establishment of an employment relationship between a player and his team, the institution argues that this is a heavy burden that may reach up to 200% of the salary that the club intended to pay the player, all in accordance with his main income rate. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this matter is inaccurate.
- According to Hapoel Katamon, the claim should be dismissed for four reasons. First and foremost, for the reason that at the time of the accident, the plaintiff's status had not yet been settled, neither as a paid player nor as a volunteer player. In the meantime, the group denies the plaintiff's claim that had it not been for the accident, he would have continued his activity in the group at least for a salary of ILS 700. Although Hapoel Katamon admits that a limited number of players were employed by it on a salaried basis, it claims that the plaintiff was not expected to be included in the list of employees in light of his age and taking into account his meager professional experience, as well as the fact that he was not an active player in the years preceding the accident. In this regard, Hapoel Katamon argues that the plaintiff did not present any evidence to support his claim that his professional experience justified his paid employment.
In addition, Hapoel Katamon argues that an examination of the parties' relationship in light of the rulings that were ruled regarding the existence of an employment relationship also shows that the plaintiff was not an employee. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's participation in the group was done as a hobby or for the purpose of study, and in any event not for the purpose of performing work, so there is no basis for the plaintiff's claim that he should be recognized as an employee. Moreover, it was clarified that no employment contract had been entered into between the team and the plaintiff, even though at the time of the accident the team had already entered into a number of contracts with the players it was interested in. In other words, the absence of an employment contract according to the group method is not accidental. Moreover, according to Hapoel Katamon, it has already been determined that the relationship between an amateur team and the players does not establish a working relationship because the players are not obligated to it, and moreover, the plaintiff's injury occurred as part of the preparation for the season and not as part of the team's regular activity. In light of this, Hapoel Katamon claims that the integration test did not take place, but according to it, the additional auxiliary tests set out in the case law are also not met. In addition, in the absence of commitment between the group and the plaintiff, the test of supervision and control is not met, and the plaintiff was certainly not obligated to perform the work himself. Hapoel Katamon provided the players with only a meager uniform and equipment as part of its training and games, and for this reason it cannot be determined that the test of supplying the tools took place. As to the payment of wages, the group argues that there is no dispute that at the time of the accident it was not obligated to pay any wages to the plaintiff. According to her, she did not plan to pay the plaintiff wages later on, and therefore the test of payment of wages does not exist either. At the time of the accident, it was clear to all concerned that the team was in the process of selecting players for the purpose of forming the team, and therefore there was no intention to formulate a working relationship, or to present such a relationship to third parties. The team further claims that no fixed time frame was created due to the lack of commitment on the part of the players to the team, and in any event, it cannot be claimed that any financial dependence was created between it and the plaintiff. In view of all of the above, Hapoel Katamon is of the opinion that there was no employee-employer relationship between it and the plaintiff.