FIFA - Decisión disputa Eleouet 08062023

REF. FPSD-9373

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 8 June 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Allan Eleouet

COMPOSITION:

Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson Khalid Awad Althebity (Saudi Arabia), Member Alexandra Gomez Bruinewoud (Uruguay & the Netherlands), Member

CLAIMANT:

Allan Eleouet, Switzerland Represented by SPFBiH

RESPONDENT:

FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina Represented by Drazen Nikolic pg. 2

REF. FPSD-9373

I. Facts of the case

1. The relevant parties to this dispute are the Swiss player, Allan Eleouet (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant); and the Bosnian club, FK Tuzla City (hereinafter: the club or the

Respondent). The contractual basis

2. On 18 June 2022, the club and a company named “World Sports Management Agency for Allan Eleouet” signed a document named “Ugovor” (hereinafter: the Preliminary Agreement), with

the following contents: “Player:

1. Contract length – 3 years,

2. Bonus for signing the contract – 30,000 Euros net (…);

3. Player’s salary – 48,000 Euros net (…) for one year;

4. Meals 2,000 Euros net (…) per year;

5 Apartment,

6. Passage to the group stage of the Europa League (if the standard player is 70% of matches, qualifying matches) – 25,000 Euros,

7. Top scorer or assistant of the league 5,000 Euros,

8. Champion of Bosnia and Herzegovina -10,000 Euros,

9. Qualification in Europe – 5,000 Euros,

10. Team premium,

11. Two plane tickets on the route Suisse – BiH, two directions,

Agency:

12. Player transfer -20% to the Agency,

13. Commission for the Agency 10,000 Euros”.

3. The Preliminary Agreement was signed by Mr D. Ishitok on behalf of “World sports Management Agency for Allan Eleouet” and by Mr Alic Nijaz on behalf of the club.

4. On 1 July 2022, the player and the club, represented by Mr Munib Subasic, concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2022 until 30 June 2025 (i.e., 3 years) (hereinafter:

the Employment Contract).

5. As per clause 4 par. 1 of the Employment Contract, the player was entitled to a monthly salary of BAM 1,000 net.

6. Clause 15 par. 2 of the Employment Contract stipulates that: “The signing of this Contract excludes all previous agreements, oral or written, reached between the Contracting Parties regarding the subject of this Contract. This Contract does not contain any written or oral additions at the time of signing”. pg. 3

REF. FPSD-9373

7. Also on 1 July 2022, the player and a company named “Heez transport department no. 1”

(hereinafter: Heez Transport), represented by Mr Azmir Husic, signed a document titled “Work Contract” (as per the translation provided by the club) valid as from 1 July 2022 until 31 December 2022 (hereinafter: the Work Contract).

8. The player’s tasks as per the Work Contract are, quoted verbatim: “- Creation of advertisements for the promotion of the Company "Heez transport" doo Tuzla - Conduct field work depending on the needs of the Company, and this can be manifested in distribution of promotional material in public places or trade markets, presentations to the groups or individuals - To be well-informed about the Company's products and services - To be communicative and approachable to customers

• If necessary, be available to the Client - Performs other types of services related to the promotion of the Company”.

9. As per clause 4 of the Work Contract, the player was entitled to receive “compensation for the work performed in the net amount of EUR 30,000.00 (thirty thousand euros) in KM equivalent”.

The correspondence exchange between the parties

10. According to the player: • on 4 January 2023, he put the club in default and requested payment of his salaries “from the start of the employment relationship” (i.e., from July until December 2022, totalling EUR 21,000), within the next 15 days; and • on 21 January 2023, he unilaterally terminated the employment relationship with the club with immediate effect, due to the non-payment of the following remuneration: Remaining salary for the month of July in the amount of EUR 3,500; o Remaining salary for the month of August in the amount of EUR 3,500; o Remaining salary for the month of October in the amount of EUR 3,500; o Remaining salary for the month of November in the amount of EUR 3,500; o Remaining salary for the month of December in the amount of EUR 3,500; o Flight tickets reimbursement; and o EUR 1,000 food allowance. o

11. The club disputes the receipt of the abovementioned correspondences. pg. 4

REF. FPSD-9373

12. On 7 February 2023, the club sent the player a letter, in which it states that “Based on the agreement with your representative, on January 19, 2023, we set a proposal for mutual termination of the contract. Considering that we have not received any suggestions of corrections from you, please sign the agreement of provide corrections so that we can proceed with the further procedure”. A copy of an unsigned termination agreement dated 19 January

2023 was enclosed to such letter, and states inter alia that: “The club undertakes to settle financial obligations and obligations from contributions arising from the agreement on work ending with the day of signing the agreement”.

13. On 22 February 2023, the club sent the player another letter, stating that he violated his contractual obligations by not attending training and the selection for the senior competitive season. It further claimed the player “tried to secure a certificate based on ‘unilateral termination of the contract’” and advises him to find an agreement with the club, failing which the club would claim against him for breach of contract.

The new employment relationship of the player

14. In parallel and by contract dated 10 February 2022, the player entered into a new employment relationship with the Swiss club, Etoile Carouge FC valid as from 3 February 2023 until 30 June 2023. Accordingly, he is entitled to a total remuneration of CHF 10,000.

15. According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS): • On 6 and 14 February 2023, the Swiss Football Association (SFV) requested the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) of the player; • On 14 February 2023, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Federation (FFBH) rejected the ITC request and stated that “There has been no mutual agreement regarding early termination of the employment contract between the former club and the professional player”; • On 17 February 2023, the Single Judge of the FIFA Players’ Status Chamber passed a decision and authorized the registration of the player with SFV. Such decision was “without prejudice to any possible decision from the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber

(DRC) and/or the competent decision-making body on the substance of the potential or existing contractual dispute between the player and his former club (as well as his new club)”; and • On 17 February 2023, the player was registered with Etoile Carouge FC. pg. 5

REF. FPSD-9373

II. Proceedings before FIFA

16. On 23 February 2023, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a. Claim of the player

17. In his claim, the player explained that he signed the Employment Contract with the club for a monthly salary of BAM 1,000, as well as the Preliminary Agreement and the Work Contract according to which his remuneration was supplemented. Thus, he understands his monthly salary amounted to EUR 4,511 plus EUR 166 for meals.

18. Yet, the player claimed that from the beginning of the employment relationship, the club failed to pay his full remuneration. From July 2022 up until the date of termination, he only received (i) BAM 58,835 (i.e., EUR 29,910 as per the player) as signing bonus paid on 12

September 2022; and (ii) BAM 5,060.43 (i.e., EUR 2,587, as per the player) as monthly remuneration. Furthermore, the default was not cured by the club within the deadline granted in his default notice.

19. The player added that, on 13 January 2023, the club signed a new player, Mr Mizrad Mahnovic, who was assigned his shirt number. Additionally, the player submitted that the club failed to invite him for the winter preparation and proposed the mutual termination of their contractual relationship.

20. Not having received a reply or any payments within the deadline granted in his default notice, the player pointed out that he terminated the Employment Contract unilaterally on 21 January 2023 with just cause.

21. The player argued that the following amounts remain outstanding up until today: “Part of the monthly salary due in BAM ▪ BAM 564,57 as arrear for the part of the salary due in BAM under the contract for the month of July 2022. ▪ BAM 75 as arrear for the part of the salary due in BAM under the contract for the

month of August 2022. ▪ BAM 75 as arrear for the part of the salary due in BAM under the contract for the month of September 2022. ▪ BAM 75 as arrear for the part of the salary due in BAM under the contract for the month of October 2022. ▪ BAM 75 as arrear for the part of the salary due in BAM under the contract for the month of November 2022. ▪ BAM 75 as arrear for the part of the salary due in BAM under the contract for the month of December 2022. 3 Ibid. Para. 65. 5 ▪ BAM 1000 as arrear for the part of the salary due in BAM under the contract for the pg. 6 REF. FPSD-9373 month of January 2023. ▪ Total: BAM 1.939,57 Part of the monthly salary due in EUR ▪ EUR 4000 + EUR 166 as arrear for the part of the salary due in EUR under the contract for the month of July 2022. ▪ EUR 4000 + EUR 166 as arrear for the part of the salary due in EUR under the contract for the month of August 2022. ▪ EUR 4000 + EUR 166 as arrear for the part of the salary due in EUR under the contract for the month of September 2022. ▪ EUR 4000 + EUR 166 as arrear for the part of the salary due in EUR under the contract for the month of October 2022. ▪ EUR 4000 + EUR 166 as arrear for the part of the salary due in EUR under the contract for the month of November 2022. ▪ EUR 4000 + EUR 166 as arrear for the part of the salary due in EUR under the contract for the month of December 2022. ▪ EUR 4000 + EUR 166 as arrear for the part of the salary due in EUR under the

contract for the month of January 2023. ▪ Total: EUR 28 000 + EUR 1 162 Flight Tickets ▪ EUR 261,21”.

22. He also claimed to be entitled to receive compensation corresponding to the residual value of the Employment Contract and the supplementary contracts, calculated as follows: “Season 22/23 ▪ BAM 5000 (5 x 1000) for the salary in BAM ▪ EUR 20 000 (5 x 4000) + EUR 830 (5 x 166) for the salary and meal allowance in EUR Season 23/24 ▪ BAM 12 000 (12 x 1000) for the salary in BAM ▪ EUR 48 000 and EUR 2 000 for the salary and meal allowance in EUR Season 24/25 ▪ BAM 12 000 (12 x 1000) for the salary in BAM ▪ EUR 48 000 and EUR 2 000 for the salary and meal allowance in EUR”.

23. In case he found a new contract and the compensation was mitigated, he requested additional compensation corresponding to 6 monthly salaries, due to egregious circumstances. pg. 7

REF. FPSD-9373

24. In conclusion, the player requested the FIFA to “determine that he terminated the employment relationship with the Club with just cause on 21 January 2023 - and to order the Club to pay the Player the following amounts: ▪ Overdue payables, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the relevant payment dates until the date of effective payment, specified as follows (cf. IV): ▪ BAM 1.939,57 for the part of the monthly salaries to be paid in BAM ▪ EUR 28 000 + EUR 1 162 for the part of the monthly salaries to be paid in EUR ▪ EUR 261,21 for the flight ticket ▪ BAM 29 000 + EUR 120 000 as the amount due as compensation for breach of contract

+ 5% interest as from 21 January 2023 until the date of effective payment. ▪ The value of four return flight tickets (return) for the route Switzerland – Bosnia and Herzegovina + 5% interest as from 21 January 2023 until the date of effective payment to be calculated by FIFA Travel.” b. Reply of the club

25. In its reply, the club entirely rejected the player’s claim. In particular, the club denied having signed any annex complementing the player’s salary and points out no such document was presented by the player. The Preliminary Agreement of 18 June 2022, named “Contract”, was allegedly concluded with World Sports Management Agency, not with the player. The club, however, denied having signed such document and claims not knowing Mr Alic Nijaz, who signed such contract on its behalf. In this respect, the club indicated that “(…) the Club’s authorized persons for representation and proxy are: 1. Almir Husić, president of the club; 2.

Sabahudin Vugdalić, director of the club and 3. Munib Subašić, president of the Assembly” (emphasis added).

26. It also pointed out that the document of 18 June 2022 does not contain the stamp of the club. In addition, no power of attorney issued by the player authorising World Sports Management Agency to act on his behalf was provided. Thus, the club alleged that the Preliminary Agreement shall not be taken into account and the player’s salary amounts to BAM 1,000 only.

27. The club further states that “(…) the Player concluded with one of the sponsors and companies based in BIH, “HEEZ Transport” Ltd Branch “Heez Construction” (in BIH: Heez Gradnja), the work contract for marketing services and promotions of the company, which contract determinates the compensation in the net amount of 30.000,00 EUR in BAM currency. The Heez ltd paid to the Player the amount of 58.500,00 BAM (…), on 12 September 2022, which Player now stating as

alleged payment by the Club, which simply is not true (Enclosure R4 and R5 by the Respondent). Therefore, the payment to the Claimant on 12 September 2022, in amount of 58.500,00 BAM, pg. 8 REF. FPSD-9373 has been made by the third party, Heez Ltd Company, in accordance with the contract between the Claimant and that third party”.

28. In view of the foregoing, the club stated having complied with all its financial obligations towards the player as per the Employment Contract, hence the termination by the player took place without just cause.

29. The club admitted having offered the player the termination of their employment relationship on 19 January 2023, due to the fact their cooperation was not going well. The player however did not react to the proposal and the contract remained valid and binding.

Consequently, the request for the issuance of the player’s ITC by SFV was rejected, as the club and the player were allegedly still contractually bound.

30. On the other hand, the club denied having ever received the player’s default and termination notices and disputes their authenticity. It points out that no evidence of dispatch or receipt was provided by the player and the letters do not contain “any email address of the sender or dates of sending”. It filed comments from a technology expert to this extent.

31. Based on the foregoing, the club concluded that the player terminated the contract without just cause and requested the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)to entirely reject his claim.

No counterclaim was filed by the club against the player. c. Rejoinder of the player

32. In his rejoinder, the player rejected the club’s argumentation that the Preliminary Agreement should be disregarded and that the Work Contract, concluded with one of the club’s sponsors, is not football-related.

33. In particular, he pointed out that it was not logic that he would receive a salary of BAM 1,000 only (i.e., EUR 255) from the club and a sign-on fee of EUR 30,000 from one of the

club’s sponsors for a period of 6 months. He claimed that “It is a common legal construction that a club’s sponsor cover part of a player’s remuneration under a groundless marketing and/or image right agreement while in fact the amount paid corresponds to the player’s remuneration in exchange of his football services. In such legal construct, the marketing and/or image right agreement is an addendum or a supplementary agreement to the employment contract to be regarded as to be part of the actual employment relationship. In the present case, and as stated by the Club itself, the company Heez Transport is one of the main Club’s sponsors, owned by the Club’s President, and the amount paid corresponds exactly to the signing on fee (i.e. EUR 30 000) to be paid by the Club under art. 2 of the Annex to the Employment Contract. (Enclosures 1 & 2). This marketing agreement was thus simply a way for the Club to execute part of the commitments made in the Annex”. He further added that the contract with Heez Transport was signed by one of the duly authorised representatives of the club, as the latter itself indicated in its reply to the claim. pg. 9

REF. FPSD-9373

34. He also argued that the payment order dated 12 September 2022, allegedly issued by a transport company, was in possession of the club and was provided by the latter in its reply, “which confirms that the marketing agreement is part of the employment contract”.

35. As to the Preliminary Agreement, he alleged that the latter clearly refers to the club as the counterparty and that the player and his agent could believe in good faith that the signatory was duly authorised to act on behalf of the club. He filed additional documentation in support of his argumentation.

36. Finally, the player deemed that the club’s allegation that it did not receive the default and termination notices, and that the letters provided to FIFA were not authentic, was unsubstantiated. He pointed out that the letters were sent to the club’s email indicated on

its website, (i.e., info@fktuzlacity.com). Likewise, he is of the opinion that the club was in any case well-aware of the existence of outstanding salaries towards the player, as the parties were in constant contact via text messages.

37. Finally, the player insisted on his original request for relief.

d. Final comments of the club

38. In its final comments, the club insisted that the player’s claim is unfounded and should be therefore rejected. It pointed out that the player’s salary of BAM 1,000 corresponds to EUR 510,18 and not EUR 225, as indicated by the player, and covers more than the player’s monthly expenses.

39. The club reiterated that the Work Contract, stipulating the payment of EUR 30,000 to the player, was not concluded with the club, but with one of its sponsors. Thus, it should be disregarded in the context of the present claim. Furthermore, the club claimed that it is “(…) not true that this is common legal construction that a club’s sponsor cover part of a player’s remuneration under a groundless marketing and/or image right agreement, because, firstly the Club did not participate or signed any kind of marketing and image right agreement with the Player, and secondly nor this particular work contract has been signed in benefit of the club”.

40. The club also insisted that the Preliminary Agreement is not valid, as it was concluded with an agency and not signed by an authorised representative of the club. It also pointed out that the representation agreements provided by the player in his replica did not exist or were not presented earlier.

41. The club also highlighted that it never received the default and termination notifications of the player, and pointed out that the latter could not provide a copy of the emails via which these letters were allegedly sent, while the club presented a specialist report confirming such emails were never received. pg. 10

REF. FPSD-9373

42. Consequently, the club reiterated that the parties only concluded one valid contract: the

Employment Contract with the monthly salary of BAM 1,000, which was duly paid by the club.

43. In the club’s view, the player’s claim should thus be rejected as completely unfounded.

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

a. Jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal

44. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 23 February 2023 and submitted for decision on 8 June 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

45. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) (May 2023 edition), the DRC is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Swiss player and a Bosnian club.

46. At this point, the DRC acknowledged that the claim at hand is based on a constellation of contracts, namely: (i) the Preliminary Agreement signed on 18 June 2022; (ii) the Employment Contract signed on 1 July 2022; and (iii) the Work Contract also signed on 1

July 2022.

47. In parallel, the Chamber also recalled that, in principle, FIFA is not competent to decide on agreements in which the subject-matter is civil or commercial (i.e., the license of image

rights), as those are not employment-related agreements. However, in line with the Football Tribunal’s longstanding jurisprudence, such conclusion might be different if specific elements of the separate agreement suggest that it was in fact meant to be part of the actual employment relationship. Therefore, commercial agreements shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the particularities and specific circumstances of each individual dispute (cf. Commentary on the RSTP, Edition 2021 – page 364-5).

48. While considering the above, the Chamber was firm to determine that both the Preliminary Agreement and the Employment Contract are clearly employment-related, because of their self-evident conduct which pertain to the activities of the player as a footballer, employed unequivocally by the club. Therefore, the Chamber confirmed that both fall within the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Football Tribunal (cf. art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the FIFA pg. 11

REF. FPSD-9373

RSTP). As such, their validity and effect should be assessed as to the substance of the matter.

49. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber considered that the nature of the Work Contract concluded between the player and Heez Transport was disputed, hence it required further analysis. In particular, the DRC was observant of the club’s argumentation according to which such contract was related to services alien to their employment relationship entailing that it should not be taken into consideration by the Chamber.

50. On this note, the DRC went on analysing the wording of the Work Contract and the supporting documentation filed by the player and found it remarkable that: • The Work Contract is indeed concluded between the player and a third party, i.e., Heez Transport; • Heez Transport is represented therein by its president, Mr Azmir Husic; • The club indicates that Mr Almir Husic is the club’s president and one of the three individuals authorized to conclude contracts on its behalf; • The difference in the spelling of Mr Husic’s first name appears to be a typo, and the

club did not specifically allege that they were different persons; • The player provided enough evidence that Heez Transport is a sponsor of the club, something which was also not challenged by the club; • The club claims that the player was a professional player and earned double the minimum salary for his services, which further corroborates that the Work Contract also included part of his remuneration; and • There is no evidence on file capable of demonstrating that the player was providing any type of service to Heez Transport, let alone that such services were not linked to his role as football player employed by the club.

51. In light of the foregoing, the DRC was convinced that the Work Contract was in fact part of the player’s employment relationship with the club. The Chamber was furthermore comforted with this conclusion by considering that the Work Contract contains the most significant part of the player’s remuneration, hence could be logically considered as a component of his salary as a professional football player. In the DRC’s view, had that not been case (i.e., the services rendered by the player to Heez Transport were not connected to the employment relationship with the club), the latter should have provided any type of evidence corroborating that the player was primarily rendering professional services to Heez Transport, and that the footballing activities were merely secondary – which could not be found on the case file. pg. 12

REF. FPSD-9373

52. Once again and as opposed to the club’s position, the DRC also recalled that its jurisprudence and the one from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) are solid to establish that the fact that a company is included as a party to the relevant contract does not prevent FIFA to enter into the merits of the case (cf. Commentary on the RSTP, Edition 2021 – page 364-5). This is even clearer when considering that, in the case at hand, the club and Heez Transport are deeply and publicly connected, suggesting that the contractual setup between them was probably connected to tax / financial arrangements, yet within the boundaries of their employment relationship.

53. Taking all the above into consideration, the DRC was not persuaded by the club’s position that the Work Contract has a civil / commercial nature. As such, it could not be considered as a separate agreement, but rather as an accessory/additional agreement to the

Employment Contract.

54. In conclusion, the DRC decided that it is competent to hear the dispute at stake in its entirety.

b. Applicable legal framework

55. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of (May 2023 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 February 2023, the October 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

c. Burden of proof

56. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the TMS.

d. Merits of the dispute

57. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments, and the pg. 13

REF. FPSD-9373 documentation on file. However, the Chamber 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.

1. Main legal discussion and considerations

58. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it pertains to a claim for breach of contract lodged by a player against a club on the basis of multiple contracts concluded between them and/or alleged representatives.

59. Furthermore, the Chamber was also observant that: (i) the player terminated the employment relationship with the club on 21 January 2023, claiming to have just cause due to overdue payables (cf. art. 14bis of the Regulations); however (ii) the club disputed the justice of such termination and alleged that the requirements set out in the Regulations were not met.

60. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the following: • Which contract(s) are valid and binding to the parties and shall be considered for the purposes of the case at hand? • Was the employment relationship terminated with just cause by the player? • What are the consequences that follow?

61. The DRC moved then to the analysis of each topic in turn.

(A) Which contract(s) are valid and binding to the parties and shall be considered for the purposes of the case at hand?

62. As a departure point, the DRC recalled that on one side, the player claims the parties concluded 3 valid contracts, namely: a) one on 18 June 2022, represented by his agent (i.e., the Preliminary Agreement), b) one on 1 July 2022 with the club for a monthly salary of BAM 1,000 (i.e., the Employment Contract); and c) one on 1 July 2022 with Heez Transport, one of the club’s sponsors, for the payment of EUR 30,000 (i.e., the Work Contract). On the other pg. 14

REF. FPSD-9373 side, the DRC was observant that the club deems the only contract binding the parties is the Employment Contract.

63. Consequently, the DRC deemed that it needed to establish which were the contracts at the basis of the parties’ employment relationship.

64. In doing so, the Chamber firstly highlighted that the authenticity and validity of the Employment Contract is not only uncontested but also acknowledged by both parties.

Therefore, the DRC stressed that such contract is valid and binding to the parties, as well as shall be taken into consideration for the analysis of the dispute.

65. Secondly, the DRC also recalled its conclusion, while analysing its jurisdiction on the matter, that the Work