Sp Spor orts s Me Medi diat ation ion Wo World ld Fo Forum um of of Me Medi diat ation ion Cen entres tres Frank Fowlie Prague, ue, Cz Czech Re Republi lic June 7, 2013
PLAN Sport rt Dis Dispute e Re Resolutio lution Ce Centr tre of Ca Canada (SDR DRCC CC) ) Histor tory y & C & Corpora rate te Overvi rview ew Se Service ices: s: Dis Dispute e Re Resolut lution ion Sports Mediation Dis Dispute e Preventi ention
PRO ROBLE LEM M STATEMENT EMENT “ Due to a lack of fair and consistent policies, or to the improper administration of those policies, athletes and other participants in sport are being disciplined, harassed and denied opportunities without proper recourse to a hearing or appeal.” Report of the Work Group to the Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) May 2000
Minis inistry ry of Ca Canadian ian He Herit itage ge Sport rt Ca Canada (Branch) nch) National Sp Na Sport rt Orgs gs Multispor port Se Servi vices s Orgs gs (NS NSOs) Os) (MSOs) SOs) Non Non-Olympic mpic or Olympic pic or Paralym alympic pic Paralym alympic pic Spor ort Delivery ery Suppor pport Service ice / Advocac ocacy sport rts (e.g. sport rts (e.g. cricket, et, swimming, ing, Olymp mpic SDRCC racquet quetball ball, basket etball ball, Paralymp mpic Centr tre for r Ethics in S Sport rt wheelchair lchair bobslei leigh) gh) Commonwealth th Athlete tesCAN rugby by) University ty Sport rt Coaching Association Etc. Sport rt Offici ficials Canada Wome men in Sport rt Etc. Athle lete tes, s, coaches, es, offic ficials ials, , adminis inistrators, trators, sport rt events, ts, etc. c.
CONS CO NSTI TITUTIO TUTION N (Federal eral Law) w) MI MISS SSION: ON: “ to to provide vide to to th the sport ort communi mmunity ty a national tional alt lternat rnative ive dis ispute pute resolution solution service vice fo for sport ort dis isputes putes and d expertise pertise and d assistance istance regarding garding alt lternative rnative dispute resolution ”
WHA HAT IS THE HE SDR DRCC CC No Not-fo for-profit profit Establ ablish ish by a F Federal ral Act in p in passed d in in 2003 100% Funded ed by the Gove vernm rnment ent of Ca Canada Preve vention ntion & Re Resolutio lution of Sport rt Dis Disputes es Across oss Ca Canada in b in both Off ffici icial l Languag ages es (F & E) E) Modeled led after ter the Co Court t of Arbitratio itration n for r Sport rt (CA CAS)
WHO HO IS THE HE SDR DRCC CC 12 Board d Memb mbers ers Appointe inted d by Minis inister er of Sport rt Execut utive ive Dir Director tor / CE CEO + 4 full ll-tim time e staf aff 43 Profession fessional al Arbit itrato rators rs and Mediator iators
WHO HO US USES THE HE SDR DRCC CC
WHO HO US USES THE HE SDR DRCC CC
TRI RIBUN BUNAL AL SERV RVIC ICES ES Re Resolutio lution Facil ilit itation tion (RF RF) Preventative Mandatory Mediatio iation Med/Arb /Arb Arbitration
SDRCC DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRINCIPLES Independe pendence nce Access ss (low low-co cost st, , tim ime-effi efficient, ient, bil iling ingual) l) Parties’ agreement is paramount Scope of review: iew: trial ial de novo De Deference rence to sport rt tech chni nical l experts rts Mandatory atory mediative tive process ss Fina inal l and bind inding ing solut lution ions
Exist istence nce Act of Federa ral l Parli liament nt Do Doping ing Tribu ibuna nal Ordi dinary ry Tribu ibunal al Jurisdicti isdiction Fir irst t Instanc stance SDRCC SDRCC Interna ternal l Appeal l (conf onfer erred red by CADP) P) (may ay be waiv ived) ed) SDRCC SDRCC CAS CAS SDRCC SDRCC Appeal Na Nation ional Internatio ternational al
DI DISPUTE UTE RE RESOL OLUTIO UTION Ty Types es of Ordinary nary Disputes utes Funding 22% Discipline 7% Selection 56% Others 15%
Why Mandatory atory Mediatio iation in Sp in Sports? ts? The “zero - sum” Game : Sports people are competitive in nature. Maint intai aining ing Re Relat lation ionshi hips: Parties in sports-related disputes need to be able to work together afterwards.
Statisti atistics s Over r Tim ime (N= N= 192 cases) s) When mediatio iation option ional al (2004-200 006) 6) - 42 cases: • 5 requested mediation (12%) • of them, 4 settled (80%) Overall settlement rate: 9.5% When mediatio iation mandatory atory (2006-201 013) 3) - 150 cases: • 19 for mediation: 13 settled (68%) • 33 for med/arb: 16 settled (48%); 14 adjudicated (42%) • 98 for arbitration; 24 settled in mandatory RF (24%) Overall settlement rate: 35%
Percentag entage e of Settle leme ments nts per Year 60,0% 53,8% 50,0% 50,0% 41,0% 40,0% 40,0% 37,0% 30,0% 30,8% 20,0% 20,0% 10,0% 4,5% 0,0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Examples of Ordinary Tribunal Cases FUNDING ING A “card” brings not only direct funding to the recipient, but a series of benefits such as access to training facilities, coaching, sport science services. Athlete A is nominated to receive a card for this year, but not Athlete B. Athlete B appeals the decision. Only one “card” can be granted and the Arbitrator must decide to whom. Settlement reached in mandatory RF: Athlete B will be nominated for the card, but will write a cheque to Athlete A in the full amount of the card. Why?
Examples of Ordinary Tribunal Cases DISCIP CIPLI LINE Athlete C is a top-performer, multiple national and international title holder and best medal-hope at the next Olympics in 3 months. She gets along well with her teammates but is constantly at loggerheads with the national team coach. She questions all of his decisions and regularly breaches the team rules. One day, exasperated, the coach tells her that her behavior is unacceptable and that she is expelled from the team. Settlement reached in mediation: Athlete C was reinstated under very strict behavioral conditions. Why?
Examples of Ordinary Tribunal Cases TEAM M SELECTI CTION ON Athlete D was not selected as a member of the national team. He appeals the decision, claiming that he met all of the selection criteria outlined in the team selection policy and that the high performance committee (HPC) incorrectly applied the policy to exclude him under the undue influence of the committee chairman, who never liked him. Partial resolution reached in mandatory RF: Athlete D withdraws his claim that the HPC acted in bad faith in applying the criteria. Parties issue a statement of agreed facts and narrow down the question to be arbitrated. How?
Publications
We Website site / In / Inter teractive active Ga Game me / Ap Appeal peal Pa Panel nel Or Orientat ientation ion
Newsletter / Case Summaries
Qu Ques esti tion ons www.c .crdsc rdsc-sdrcc. sdrcc.ca ca
Recommend
More recommend
