Opinion ID: 767632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Grievances, Settlement Agreement and Framework

Text: 9 In 1986, 1987 and 1988, the Association filed grievances against the Clubs, alleging that the Clubs had violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Clubs and the Association by engaging in collusion in the market for free agent services after the 1985, 1986 and 1987 baseball seasons. On December 21, 1990, after arbitration decisions finding that the Clubs had engaged in collusion and caused extensive damage to numerous players, the Association and the Clubs entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) to resolve the grievances. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Clubs established a fund of $280 million to be distributed to damaged players. 10 The Settlement Agreement provided that the Association would design a Framework to establish an appropriate process for evaluation and determination of individual claims for money from the fund. The Association issued a proposed Framework for resolution of claims to an independent arbitration panel for its consideration, and any player was permitted to file objections. On September 14, 1991, after hearings on players' objections to the Framework, the arbitration panel approved the Framework with amendments. 11 Players claiming damages from the collusion were required to file their claims by May 20, 1991. 3 The Association then began evaluating the claims pursuant to the Framework. 12 Under the Framework, as the Association concluded the evaluation of individual players' claims for a particular season or seasons, it was required to propose an overall distribution plan or a partial distribution plan for the claims relating to that season or seasons. Each recommended plan was then submitted to player claimants and the arbitrator. Player claimants or their agents could object to the Association's distribution plan recommendations, and the Association then responded by providing the arbitrator with a written statement of how it arrived at its proposed damage evaluation for that particular player. An objecting player claimant could then request oral argument before the arbitrator. 13 The Framework defines the responsibility and authority of the arbitrator with regard to review of a distribution plan as follows: 14 . . . the arbitrator shall determine only whether the approved Framework and the criteria set forth therein have been properly applied in the proposed Distribution Plan. The arbitrator may request such information from the Association or from any objec tors which he deems necessary to make his determi nation. 15 If the arbitrator determines that the approved Framework and the criteria set forth therein have not been properly applied with respect to any portion of a proposed distribution Plan, he shall have the authority to modify or amend the Distribution Plan to the extent necessary, in his judgment, to cure that defect. IN DOING SO, THE ARBITRATOR MAY RAISE OR LOWER THE DAMAGE ALLOCATION AND/OR MAJOR LEAGUE SERVICE AWARD TO ANY PLAYER OR PLAYERS . . . . 16 The arbitrator shall promptly issue a written award regarding any proposed Distribution Plan after he has considered all objections and after he has con ducted his own independent review, which award shall specify the specific damage allocation for each individual player claimant pursuant to the Distribu tion Plan. The content of the written award shall oth erwise be subject to the sole discretion of the arbitrator. As mandated by the Settlement Agree ment, all decisions of the arbitrator regarding any proposed Distribution Plan will be final and binding on all individual player claimants, the Association, the Major League Baseball Player Relations Com mittee and the Clubs. 17 (Emphasis in original). 18