Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc.
1995 WL 153600, 880 F. Supp. 246 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement concerning free agency and salary arbitration in professional sports are mandatory subjects of bargaining. An employer's unilateral change to these terms before a good-faith bargaining impasse is reached constitutes an unfair labor practice in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Facts:
- The Major League Baseball Owners and the Players were parties to a Basic Agreement governing employment, which included a reserve/free agency system, salary arbitration for eligible players, and an anti-collusion provision.
- The Basic Agreement expired on December 31, 1993, but the parties continued to operate under its terms while negotiating a new agreement.
- During negotiations for a successor agreement, the Owners sought to implement a 'salary cap,' which the Players opposed.
- On August 12, 1994, the Players commenced a strike after negotiations stalled.
- On December 22, 1994, the Owners declared that negotiations were at an impasse and announced they would unilaterally impose a salary cap and eliminate salary arbitration.
- On February 6, 1995, the Owners formally notified the Players that individual clubs were no longer authorized to negotiate contracts with players or certified agents, effectively eliminating the existing free agency and salary arbitration systems.
Procedural Posture:
- The Major League Baseball Players Association (Players) filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging the Owners had engaged in unfair labor practices.
- The NLRB's General Counsel issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing against the Owners, alleging violations of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA.
- Daniel Silverman, the Regional Director for the NLRB, filed a Petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA, pending final disposition of the charges before the Board.
- The Players were permitted to participate in the action before the district court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's unilateral elimination of an expired collective bargaining agreement's free agency system, anti-collusion provision, and salary arbitration system, prior to reaching a good-faith bargaining impasse, constitute an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Sotomayor, District Judge.
Yes. An employer's unilateral elimination of an expired collective bargaining agreement's core economic systems constitutes an unfair labor practice under the NLRA. The NLRA requires parties to bargain in good faith over mandatory subjects of bargaining, which include 'wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.' Parties must maintain the status quo on these mandatory subjects after a contract expires until they reach a good-faith impasse. Citing extensive precedent in professional sports, the court found that the constituent parts of the reserve/free agency system, the anti-collusion provision, and salary arbitration are all mandatory subjects because they are intimately related to wages. The Owners' argument that they possess a statutory right to bargain collectively as an employer group is incorrect; the NLRA grants the right of collective action to employees, not employers. Therefore, the Owners' unilateral actions before reaching a genuine impasse provided the National Labor Relations Board with reasonable cause to believe an unfair labor practice occurred.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirmed that unique employment structures in professional sports, such as free agency and salary arbitration, are considered mandatory subjects of bargaining under the NLRA. By enjoining the Owners' unilateral actions, the court preserved the integrity of the collective bargaining process and prevented the employer from using self-help to impose new terms before a genuine impasse. The ruling significantly strengthened the players' union's position and ultimately played a crucial role in ending the 1994-95 baseball strike, establishing a key precedent that labor law principles apply forcefully even in the specialized context of professional sports leagues.
