The case involves a dispute between Xinjiang Guanghui Basketball Club Ltd. and a strength coach, referred to as C., concerning the termination of an employment agreement signed on 5 August 2011. The contract stipulated that C. would serve as a strength coach for the 2011-2012 season, with a guaranteed salary of $48,000 paid in monthly installments. It included an arbitration clause specifying that disputes would be resolved by the FIBA Arbitral Tribunal (FAT) in Geneva, with potential appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and would be decided ex aequo et bono, based on fairness rather than strict legal principles. C. began working on 6 October 2011 but left on 12 March 2012. The club claimed he left for a holiday, while C. asserted his employment had ended. The club demanded his return, threatening to withhold salary payments if he refused. C. maintained he had been informed his services were no longer needed and had joined the Chinese Olympic team. The club stopped paying his salary from June 2012, prompting C. to file for arbitration with the BAT, which ruled in his favor, ordering the club to pay $16,000 in unpaid salary plus interest and cover legal fees and arbitration costs. The club appealed to CAS.
The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator András Gurovits, examined the case under ex aequo et bono principles. The key issue was whether C. breached the agreement by not returning to work. The panel noted that under employment agreements, the principle of "do ut des" (exchange of work for payment) applies only if the employee renders the agreed services. Since C. chose not to return, he was not entitled to further payments. The panel also emphasized the burden of proof, requiring each party to substantiate their claims. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the BAT's decision, ruling the club must pay the outstanding salary and associated costs, as C. had not voluntarily abandoned his position but was effectively dismissed.
The club appealed the BAT's decision to CAS, arguing the contract was for one year and C. breached it by not returning from leave. C. contended his contract ended after the 2011-2012 season and he was entitled to full payment. The sole arbitrator found the appeal admissible, filed within the 21-day deadline, and confirmed CAS's jurisdiction. The arbitrator analyzed conflicting contract terms—one clause referenced "one season," while another mentioned "twelve months"—and considered the parties' conduct. The club's reminders to C. to return after his vacation and continued salary payments for April and May, months after the season ended, supported a one-year interpretation. C. claimed oral dismissal on 10 March 2012 but provided no written evidence. The arbitrator ruled C. failed to meet the burden of proof and concluded the agreement was for one year, obligating C. to provide services until September 2012. By not returning, C. breached the contract, forfeiting his right to salary payments for June through September 2012.
The CAS upheld the club's appeal, overturning the BAT's decision and dismissing C.'s claims. The case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and the role of arbitration in resolving sports-related disputes fairly. It highlights the complexities of contractual interpretation and the necessity for parties to substantiate their claims with evidence. The final ruling emphasized that C.'s failure to return to work constituted a breach, justifying the club's withholding of salary payments. The decision was based on an objective interpretation of the contract and the parties' actions, resolving the dispute in favor of the club.