Office of the Commissioner of Baseball v. World Umpires Association

242 F. Supp. 2d 380 (2003)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Office of the Commissioner of Baseball v. World Umpires Association

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
242 F. Supp. 2d 380 (2003)

Facts

The collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (commissioner) (plaintiff) and the World Umpires Association (union) (defendant) set forth two dispute-resolution paths. Per Article 23, disputes about the interpretation or application of the CBA or Major League Baseball (MLB) rules or policies could be appealed via an arbitration grievance. Disputes about umpire discipline were governed by Article 10, which provided for review by an MLB official whose decision would be final and binding and not subject to Article 23’s grievance process. Article 10 did not define what constituted discipline, but a warning issued to an umpire was provided as an example. In May 2002, MLB’s Ralph Nelson notified umpire John Hirschbeck that, among other things, his conduct during a recent game violated MLB’s official playing rules and that Hirschbeck’s threat (issued to his supervisor) to violate the rules in the future would have serious repercussions if carried out. The union responded with a letter stating that it was pursuing an Article 23 grievance regarding Nelson’s letter; the union then filed a formal grievance. The commissioner sought both a declaratory judgment that the dispute was not subject to arbitration and a permanent injunction against the arbitration, arguing that the grievance concerned discipline and thus was not subject to Article 23. The union responded that (1) the grievance did not challenge discipline, but rather concerned the commissioner’s interpretation or application of, among other things, the CBA and other MLB rules or policies and (2) disallowing arbitration would give the commissioner unfettered discretion to interpret and apply the CBA and MLB rules and policies. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kaplan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership