On November 30, 1998, the United States Supreme
Court denied the review of a petition filed by the Major League
Umpires Association asking it to decide whether the umpires were
entitled to "special events compensation" after the
1994 post-season was canceled due to a players strike. (Petition
for Writ of Certiorari, Sep. 24, 1998)
The Umpires Association and Major League
Baseball entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement that was
scheduled to expire on December 31, 1994. The agreement provided
that Association members were entitled to additional compensation
for working special events. Special events included the All-Star
Game and post-season play.
Due to the 1994 player's strike, Major
League Baseball decided to cancel the remaining six weeks of the
regular season as well as the post-season. After canceling the
post-season, the league refused to pay the umpires their special
event compensation. The Umpires Association then filed a
grievance against Major League Baseball seeking $1,440,000.00.
On October 7, 1996, the grievance arbitrator
decided that there was no particular provision in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement that applied to the dispute. The arbitrator
then concluded that each umpire was entitled to a small portion
of the special events compensation for 1994.
The district court (E.D. Pa., August 29, 1997,
160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2099, 1997 WL 587357) and the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals (July 23, 1998, 159 F.3d 1352, 160 L.R.R.M.
(BNA) 219 (referenced in 'Table of Decisions Without Reported
Opinions)) recognized the arbitrators decision that there was no
provision within the Collective Bargaining Agreement to interpret
and apply to the dispute. However, both courts affirmed the award
of the arbitrator.
The Umpires Association then filed a petition
for certiorari to review the judgement of the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals. The petition asked the Supreme Court to determine
whether an arbitrator can resolve a dispute upon which the
parties never contractually agreed. The Umpires Association
argued that the arbitrator was not empowered to decide the
dispute or to fashion a remedy pro-rating pool payments. They
felt that the dispute was one that should have been left to the
parties to resolve through the bargaining process, and not the
arbitration process.
The Umpires Association argued that the
arbitrator is authorized only to interpret the existing
provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. The Umpires
Association further contended that an arbitrator cannot base his
decision on his own definition of "fairness." Thus, the
Umpires Association concluded that if the Collective Bargaining
Agreement cannot resolve the dispute, an arbitrator then has no
authority.
Nonetheless, on November 30, 1998, the United
States Supreme Court denied the petition for review of the
decision.
Top of Page
You Make the Call. . . Index
"You Make The Call..." is a newsletter published four times per year (spring,
summer, fall, winter) by the National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law
School, PO Box 1881, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53201-1881. (414) 288-5815, fax (414) 288-5818,
munsli@vms.csd.mu.edu. (www.marquette.edu/law/sports/call.html).
This publication is distributed via fax and email to individuals in the sports field upon
request.
|
Editorial Staff:
Paul M. Anderson, Editor & Designer
Kirsten Hauser, Associate Editor
|
Copyright © 1999 -- All rights reserved.
