Sp Spor orts s Me Medi diat ation ion Wo World ld Fo Forum - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sp Spor

• rts

s Me Medi diat ation ion

Wo World ld Fo Forum um of

• f Me

Medi diat ation ion Cen entres tres

Frank Fowlie

Prague, ue, Cz Czech Re Republi lic June 7, 2013

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 PLAN

“ Due to a lack of fair and consistent policies, or to the improper administration

• f those policies, athletes and other

participants in sport are being disciplined, harassed and denied opportunities without proper recourse to a hearing or appeal.”

PRO ROBLE LEM M STATEMENT EMENT

Report of the Work Group to the Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) May 2000

Olympic pic or Paralym alympic pic sport rts (e.g. swimming, ing, basket etball ball, bobslei leigh) gh)

Minis inistry ry of Ca Canadian ian He Herit itage ge Sport rt Ca Canada (Branch) nch) Multispor port Se Servi vices s Orgs gs (MSOs) SOs) Na National Sp Sport rt Orgs gs (NS NSOs) Os)

Non Non-Olympic mpic or Paralym alympic pic sport rts (e.g. cricket, et, racquet quetball ball, wheelchair lchair rugby by) Spor

• rt Delivery

ery

Olymp mpic Paralymp mpic Commonwealth th University ty Sport rt Etc.

Suppor pport Service ice / Advocac

• cacy

SDRCC Centr tre for r Ethics in S Sport rt Athlete tesCAN Coaching Association 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.

MI MISS SSION: ON:

“ to to provide vide to to th the sport

• rt communi

mmunity ty a national tional alt lternat rnative ive dis ispute pute resolution solution service vice fo for sport

• rt dis

isputes putes and d expertise pertise and d assistance istance regarding garding alt lternative rnative dispute resolution ”

CO CONS NSTI TITUTIO TUTION N (Federal eral Law) w)

 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

• ss 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) WHA HAT 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 IS THE HE SDR DRCC CC

WHO HO US USES THE HE SDR DRCC CC

WHO HO US USES THE HE SDR DRCC CC

 Re

Resolutio lution Facil ilit itation tion (RF RF)

 Preventative  Mandatory  Mediatio

iation

 Med/Arb

/Arb

 Arbitration

TRI RIBUN BUNAL AL SERV RVIC ICES ES

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

Act of Federa ral l Parli liament nt SDRCC SDRCC

(conf

• nfer

erred red by CADP) P)

Interna ternal l Appeal l

(may ay be waiv ived) ed)

SDRCC SDRCC CAS CAS SDRCC SDRCC Ordi dinary ry Tribu ibunal al Do Doping ing Tribu ibuna nal Exist istence nce Jurisdicti isdiction Fir irst t Instanc stance Appeal Na Nation ional Internatio ternational al

DI DISPUTE UTE RE RESOL OLUTIO UTION

Funding 22% Discipline 7% Others 15% Selection 56%

Ty Types es of Ordinary nary Disputes utes

 The “zero-sum” Game:

Sports people are competitive in nature. Why Mandatory atory Mediatio iation in Sp in Sports? ts?

 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%

4,5% 30,8% 53,8% 20,0% 37,0% 50,0% 40,0% 41,0%

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Percentag entage e of Settle leme ments nts per Year

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. Examples of Ordinary Tribunal Cases 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?

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. Examples of Ordinary Tribunal Cases Settlement reached in mediation: Athlete C was reinstated under very strict behavioral conditions. Why?

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. Examples of Ordinary Tribunal Cases 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

• ns

www.c .crdsc rdsc-sdrcc. sdrcc.ca ca