TTOC to TATT: ‘We have every right to arbitrate’

PRESIDENT of the Tennis Association of TT (TATT) Hayden Mitchell has written to TT Olympic Committee (TTOC) president Brian Lewis, saying the organisation will not abide by rulings of an arbitral committee set up by the TTOC in relation to the matter concerning youth player David Rodriguez.

Mitchell wrote Lewis, on Tuesday, following an exchange between both organisations’ attorneys, saying the TATT is comprised of member organisations and not tennis players, “which meant that the Rodriguez family could not properly bring this matter to the TTOC,” and that the Junior Davis Cup is not a event which falls under the jurisdiction of the TTOC.

“I therefore highly doubt that the TTOC has any power to impose a ruling on TATT with respect to this event,” Mitchell said.

The TTOC created a tribunal last week, which ruled that the TATT’s “No Make-up and No Exception Rule” policy, which ruled Rodriguez out of contention for the Junior Davis Cup team, was invalid.

The committee also ordered the TATT to allow Rodriguez to participate in the current training with the last four players selected after the Junior Davis Cup Trials since he was fit to continue playing.

The TATT, via its attorney, challenged the TTOC, on Friday, asking it to “identify the authority which empowered it to establish an arbitral tribunal.”

TTOC attorney Dave Williams, in his response said the governing body was acting constitutionally in its creation of such a tribunal.

“Section 31 (I) provides for the TTOC to establish an arbitral tribunal aimed at resolving disputes involving NSOs or their members. S31 (II) further states the process to be adopted in convening such tribunal aimed at resolving the disputes.

“The Arbitral Tribunal acted in accordance with the relevant provisions under S31 of TTOC’s Constitution.

“A careful review of your correspondence indicates that your client seems to be adopting the position that the TTOC does not have the authority and/or the jurisdiction to direct its operations, and in particular to arbitrate in any dispute involving itself and any of its members.

“I wish to advise that your client is a national sporting organisation, which by virtue of 59 of the TTOC’s Constitution, is deemed a member and as a consequence is bound by the terms noted therein. One such term is provided under S11 (III) which states that an NSO must ‘respect and ensure the implementation of the decisions and resolutions made by the committee.’”

However, in a strongly worded response addressed to Lewis, on Tuesday, Mitchell said he doubted the TTOC’s power to impose a ruling on TATT with respect to the Davis Cup team.

“In the circumstances, therefore, I must respectfully submit that the TTOC has no jurisdiction over the selection policy of this event. As such, the ruling of the improperly convened Arbitral Committee hearing on January 22, 2019 will not be adhered to by TATT, as it is of the considered view that the ruling was ultra vires the TTOC Constitution and therefore of no effect.”

He said the parties in question failed to follow the appropriate procedure in relation to the selection decisions (such as appeals), as set out in TATT’s internal regulations.

“As you can well appreciate, TATT as an independent and autonomous sporting organisation must jealously guard its authority, especially with respect to important and prestigious tennis tournaments such as the Junior Davis Cup,” Mitchell concluded.

Lewis was unable to be reached for comment yesterday, while Mitchell was reached but reserved comment.

He wrote, “...the TTOC indicated that they were empowered under the constitution of the TTOC to convene the said meeting and issue a final ruling with respect to the complaint.”

Mitchell added that, according to the TATT’s attorneys Section 31 of the TTOC constitution, they noted “only a registered member could report a dispute to be resolved by the TTOC.”