F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 15 January 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 January 2020,
by Omar Ongaro (Italy), DRC judge
on the claim presented by the player,
Jelani Grant, Canada
as Claimant
against the club,
PTU Pathumthani FC, Thailand
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 1 January 2014, the Canadian player, Jelani Grant, (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Thai club, Seeker FC, (hereinafter: the Club) concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of the signature until 31 December 2015 (hereinafter: the contract).
2. The Football Association of Thailand, on 24 October 2018, confirmed that the Club had changed its official name to PTU Pathumthani FC (hereinafter: the Respondent) and that the latter was still an affiliated club of the Football Association of Thailand.
3. Article 3 of the Contract provided the Claimant with a base salary of THB [Thai Baht] 25,000 per month.
4. According to article 4 of the contract, the Respondent agreed to pay the proper and necessary expenses of the Claimant as follows:
a) “VISA fee
b) 10%salary increase every year”
5. In regards to the second year of his contract, the Claimant claimed he never received the pay increase of 10% for year 2015 and that he was still receiving THB 25,000 per month , this until “the money was short every month with the promise to pay towards the end of the season”. According to the Claimant, his monthly salary in 2015 should have gone from THB 25,000 to THB 27,500, this in conformity with article 4 of the contract.
6. On 11 April 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, claiming the total amount of THB 389,000 broken down as follows:
a. THB 113,000 for 2014, consisting of:
i. THB 13,000 for August 2014;
ii. THB 25,000 for each subsequent month until December 2014.
b. THB 276,000 for 2015, consisting of:
i. THB 2,500 for January 2015;
ii. THB 13,500 for April 2015;
iii. THB 16,500 for March 2015;
iv. THB 23,500 for April 2015;
v. THB 27,500 for each month between May 2015 and December 2015.
7. In his claim, the Claimant did not request interest on the aforementioned amount.
8. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not submit an answer to the claim.
II. Considerations of the DRC judge
1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 April 2016 and decided on 15 January 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment–related dispute with an international dimension between a Canadian player and a Thai club.
3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the said Regulations and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 11 April 2016, the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that, on 1 January 2014, the Claimant and the Club concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2015.
6. Moreover, the DRC judge acknowledged that, on 24 October 2018, the Football Association of Thailand confirmed that the Club had changed its official name to PTU Pathumthani FC and that the latter was still an affiliated club of the Football Association of Thailand.
8. Furthermore, the DRC judge took note that, article 3 of the Contract provided the Claimant inter alia with a base salary of THB [Thai Baht] 25,000 per month as well as a 10% salary increase every year.
9. The DRC judge further noted that, with regard to the second year of his contract, the Claimant claimed he never received the pay increase of 10% for year 2015 and that he was still receiving THB 25,000 per month , this until “the money was short every month with the promise to pay towards the end of the season”. According to the Claimant, his monthly salary in 2015 should have gone from THB 25,000 to THB 27,500, this in conformity with article 4 of the contract.
10. Having recalled the above, the DRC judge observed that, the Claimant, in his claim lodged on 11 April 2016, claimed the total amount of THB 389,000, broken down as follows:
a. THB 113,000 for 2014, consisting of:
i. THB 13,000 for August 2014;
ii. THB 25,000 for each subsequent month until December 2014.
b. THB 276,000 for 2015, consisting of:
i. THB 2,500 for January 2015;
ii. THB 13,500 for April 2015;
iii. THB 16,500 for March 2015;
iv. THB 23,500 for April 2015;
v. THB 27,500 for each month between May 2015 and December 2015.
12. The DRC judge further noted that, in his claim, the Claimant did not request interest on the aforementioned amount.
13. In continuation, the DRC judge took note that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, despite having been invited to do so. In this way, so the DRC judge deemed, the respondent renounced its right to defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
14. In light of the above, the DRC judge highlighted that the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the claim was lodged, i.e. the amount of THB 389,000, as detailed above by the Claimant.
15. The DRC judge concluded its deliberations in the present matter by accepting the claim of the Claimant.
III. Decision of the DRC judge
1. The claim of the Claimant, Jelani Grant, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, PTU Pathumthani FC, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of THB [Thai Baht] 389,000.
3. In the event that the amount due to the claimant in accordance with above mentioned number 2. is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC judge of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the appeal procedure:
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: info@tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer