Kansas City Royals v. Major League Baseball Players Association
case brief summary
532 F.2d 615 (1976)
CASE FACTS
A dispute arose between the owners and the players' association concerning the contractual status of two baseball players under the rules of major league baseball and a collective bargaining agreement. An arbitration panel made an award that relived the players of any contractual obligation to their baseball clubs, directed the removal of the players from reserved and disqualified lists, and ordered the major leagues to inform and instruct the baseball clubs that the reserve list rule and the no-tampering rule did not inhibit, prohibit or prevent clubs from negotiation with the players.
DISCUSSION
The district court found that the players' grievances were within the scope of the arbitration panel's jurisdiction and that neither the arbitrator's resolution of the merits not the relief awarded exceeded the bounds of the panel's authority. The court held that the judgment of the district court that sustained the arbitration panel's award had to be affirmed because: the arbitration panel had jurisdiction to hear and decide the grievances; the panel's award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement; and the relief fashioned by the district court was appropriate.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court that enforced the arbitration award was affirmed.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
532 F.2d 615 (1976)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, owners of the 24 major
league baseball clubs, sought review of the judgment of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, which
refused to set aside and ordered enforcement of an arbitration
panel's award in favor of appellee players' association.CASE FACTS
A dispute arose between the owners and the players' association concerning the contractual status of two baseball players under the rules of major league baseball and a collective bargaining agreement. An arbitration panel made an award that relived the players of any contractual obligation to their baseball clubs, directed the removal of the players from reserved and disqualified lists, and ordered the major leagues to inform and instruct the baseball clubs that the reserve list rule and the no-tampering rule did not inhibit, prohibit or prevent clubs from negotiation with the players.
DISCUSSION
The district court found that the players' grievances were within the scope of the arbitration panel's jurisdiction and that neither the arbitrator's resolution of the merits not the relief awarded exceeded the bounds of the panel's authority. The court held that the judgment of the district court that sustained the arbitration panel's award had to be affirmed because: the arbitration panel had jurisdiction to hear and decide the grievances; the panel's award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement; and the relief fashioned by the district court was appropriate.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court that enforced the arbitration award was affirmed.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
No comments:
Post a Comment