Major League Ump. v. Amer. League, Prof. Baseball

Decision Date17 February 2004
Docket NumberNo. 02-1124.,No. 02-1103.,No. 02-1276.,02-1103.,02-1124.,02-1276.
Citation357 F.3d 272
PartiesTHE MAJOR LEAGUE UMPIRES ASSOCIATION v. THE AMERICAN LEAGUE OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL CLUBS; The National League of Professional Baseball Clubs; Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (D.C. No. 01-cv-02790) Office of the Commissioner of Baseball; American League of Professional Baseball Clubs; National League of Professional Baseball Clubs v. Major League Umpires Association; World Umpires Association (D.C. No. 01-cv-02816) The Major League Umpires Association, Appellant No. 02-1103 The Major League Umpires Association v. The American League of Professional Baseball Clubs; The National League of Professional Baseball Clubs; Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (D.C. No. 01-cv-02790) Office of the Commissioner of Baseball; American League of Professional Baseball Clubs; National League of Professional Baseball Clubs v. Major League Umpires Association; World Umpires Association (D.C. No. 01-cv-02816) Office of the Commissioner of Baseball; American League of Professional Baseball Clubs; National League of Professional Baseball Clubs Appellants No. 02-1124 The Major League Umpires Association Appellant No. 02-1276 v. The American League of Professional Baseball Clubs; The National League of Professional Baseball Clubs; Office of the Commissioner of Baseball.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Patrick C. Campbell, Jr., (Argued), Phillips & Campbell, P.C., Lima, for Appellant/Cross Appellee.

Howard L. Ganz, Neil H. Abramson, (Argued), Daniel R. Halem, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, Steven R. Wall, Michael S. Burkhardt, Megan E. Shafer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Philadelphia, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Before *BECKER, Chief Judge, ROTH and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

BECKER, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

OPINION

ROTH, Circuit Judge.

This appeal involves a labor dispute between Major League Baseball and its umpires, the majority of whom resigned in protest over what they viewed as objectionable policies which the Commissioner of Baseball sought to implement during the 1999 season. Although all of the resigning umpires eventually attempted to rescind their letters of resignation, the events that followed left a substantial number of them unemployed. The twenty-two unemployed umpires subsequently filed grievances that were submitted to an arbitrator.

The District Court confirmed the Arbitrator's determination that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and further confirmed the Arbitrator's disposition of the grievances of nineteen of the umpires. In their appeals, both sides challenge the confirmation of the portions of the Award unfavorable to them. In addition, the Leagues contend that the dispute was not arbitrable in the first instance. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

I. Factual Background

The Major League Umpires Association (MLUA or Association) represents umpires employed by both the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs. The American and National Leagues together comprise what is commonly referred to as Major League Baseball (MLB). Each League has its own president, operates as a separate entity, and employs its own umpires. Generally speaking, the Commissioner of Baseball broadly oversees the operation of the Leagues and participates in decisions affecting the game as a whole. However, control over the employment and discipline of umpires has historically rested with the respective League presidents.

The dispute at issue arose during the 1999 baseball season over what the MLUA perceived as an attempt by the Commissioner of Baseball, Allan H. "Bud" Selig, to strip the League presidents of supervisory power over umpires and to centralize that power in the Commissioner's Office. Specifically, the MLUA believed that Commissioner Selig was attempting to implement various new policies that violated the CBA between the MLUA and the Leagues.1

To resolve its disputes with the Leagues, the MLUA attempted to force the Leagues to negotiate with it over the proposed new policies by organizing a mass resignation of its members. The MLUA apparently believed that, by electing to pursue a mass resignation strategy as opposed to a strike or other form of work stoppage, it could avoid violating the no-strike clause contained in the CBA2 and force the Leagues to bargain because the voluntary resignation of its members would trigger the Leagues' obligation to pay the resigning umpires approximately $15 million in severance compensation. Fifty-seven of the MLUA's sixty-eight members agreed to participate in the mass resignation; twenty-three from the American League and thirty-four from the National League. On July 15, 1999, each of the resigning umpires sent a letter to his respective League president stating that he resigned his position effective September 2, 1999. Umpires with more than ten years on the job also demanded severance pay due under the CBA as a result of voluntary termination.3 In addition, each of the fifty-seven resigning umpires executed a personal services agreement with the newly created Professional Umpire Services, Inc. These agreements stated, in relevant part, that the umpire would render services "exclusively for the Corporation and/or for the Person with whom the Corporation agrees to provide Umpire Services."

Articles of incorporation were filed for Professional Umpire Services on July 9, 1999, but the company never countersigned the personal services agreements or conducted any business. It appears the MLUA planned to use the company as a means of providing the Leagues with umpiring services in the event that the labor dispute was not resolved by the time the resignations took effect on September 2.

On July 22, Commissioner Selig met with American League President Gene Budig and National League President Leonard Coleman in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in an effort to determine how best to respond to the resignations. After some discussion, the Leagues decided not to negotiate with the MLUA.

There are conflicting versions of what transpired at this meeting. The MLUA contends that there was no immediate threat to the continuing operation of MLB, as the resignations did not become effective until several weeks after the meeting. It further argues that Commissioner Selig essentially forced the League presidents to begin hiring replacement umpires in an effort to manufacture a claim of detrimental reliance and to break the union. The Leagues counter that they viewed the mass resignation strategy as a violation of the CBA's "no-strike" clause, and therefore began hiring replacement umpires to ensure the continued operation of MLB during the upcoming League playoffs and World Series.

By the end of the day on July 22, the Leagues had hired a total of twenty replacement umpires (eight in the National League and twelve in the American League).4 As a result, it soon became clear to MLUA members that the mass resignation strategy was a failure. Many began to rescind their letters of resignation. Despite the capitulation of some of its members, however, the MLUA continued to exert pressure on the Leagues. On July 23, it filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking to establish the resigning umpires' rights to termination pay and benefits.

Through a combination of new hires and resignation rescissions, the American League returned to full staff by July 26. In contrast, relatively few National League umpires had rescinded their resignations as of that date, and National League President Coleman hired five more replacement umpires. On July 27, the remaining thirty-two National League and six5 American League umpires attempted to rescind their resignations en masse. However, because of the new hires and previous resignation rescissions, only nineteen National League positions remained open. As stated above, all of the American League positions had been filled by that date

Because he had no positions left to fill, American League President Budig simply refused to allow any of the final six American League umpires to rescind their resignations.6 National League President Coleman faced a more difficult situation, as he was forced to determine which of the remaining thirty-two National League umpires would be permitted to rescind their resignations. In order to make this determination, he invoked Article VIII A of the CBA, which provides in its second paragraph that "[a]ll umpires shall be selected or retained in the discretion of the League Presidents on the basis of merit and the skill of the umpire to perform to Major League standards." Applying this provision at least in part, Coleman selected nineteen umpires from the thirty-two and permitted those nineteen to rescind their letters of resignation. Coleman then accepted the resignations of the remaining thirteen National League umpires.

By the end of this imbroglio, twenty-two of the fifty-seven MLUA members who participated in the mass resignation scheme, nearly one-third of the Association's total membership, were unemployed (nine from the American League and thirteen from the National League). All twenty-two of these umpires filed grievances under the CBA.

II. Procedural History

The MLUA filed its Demand for Arbitration of the grievances on August 27, 1999. On August 30, the MLUA sought an injunction from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prevent the Leagues from dismissing the twenty-two umpires whose resignations had been accepted and were due to take effect on September 2. The District Court held a hearing on September 1. Following this hearing, the parties executed a Memorandum of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
105 cases
  • Dodson Int'l Parts, Inc. v. Williams Int'l Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • June 15, 2020
    ...141. Id. (quoting Schoenduve Corp. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 442 F.3d 727, 733 (9th Cir. 2006); Major League Umpires Ass'n v. Am. League of Prof. Baseball Clubs, 357 F.3d 272, 279 (3d Cir. 2004)). 142. Oxford Health Plans LLC, 569 U.S. at ...
  • Ario v. The Underwriting Members Of Syndicate 53 At Lloyds For The 1998 Year Of Account
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 18, 2010
    ...uphold an award even if the arbitrator engaged in “improvident, even silly, factfinding,” Major League Umpires Ass'n v. Am. League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 357 F.3d 272, 279-80 (3d Cir.2004) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (applying 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4)), so long as th......
  • Emp'r Trs. of W. Pa. Teamsters & Emp'rs Welfare Fund v. Union Trs. of W. Pa. Teamsters & Emp'rs Welfare Fund
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • February 2, 2021
    ...submission, but it is within the courts' province to review an arbitrator's interpretation.'" Major League Umpires Ass'n v. Am. League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 357 F.3d 272, 279 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Matteson, 99 F.2d at 112-13). "[O]ur review of the interpretation of a submission is hig......
  • Indep. Lab. Employees' Union Inc. v. ExxonMobil Research & Eng'g Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • July 29, 2019
    ...in light of its language, its context, and any other indicia of the parties' intention.'" Major League Umpires Ass'n v. Am. League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 357 F.3d 272, 280 (3d. Cir. 2004) (quoting UTU, Local 1589 v. Suburban Transit Corp., 51 F.3d 376, 379-80 (3d Cir. 1995)). Most import......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT