Again, I am NOT a lawyer (scientist by trade) and I hate even talking about this kind of stuff. Still I keep hearing about the Garvey vs MLB case and I wonder something:
- If every case has some precedent somewhere out there (they must) then why would anyone EVER go to court? There would be no reason. The answer (I think) is that law, like art or movies is more nuanced and subjective than that. Please don't get all google eyed at Supreme Court hearings decisions like they are always right, they usually stink and serve broader political motivations (see wimping out and calling Obamacare a "tax" so they have no legal grounds to deal with it. They never said it was legal, just said they cannot deal with a tax issue, which is correct.)
With that, I actually looked into this case a little using this synopsis:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1210.ZPC.html
Before I start, I guess this all had to do with verified and proven and admitted collusion in MLB to cap free agency, so like the sports leagues never do bad stuff, No way. The NFL, MLB etc are all above suspicion......
My take aways:
-In the end Garvey had ONE letter from the Padres President saying they wanted to extend his contract. No follow up, no other documentation, no recorded meetings. The initial arbitrator said this was not enough to show commitment to that extension
-The MLB agreed to a settlement where if the player was wronged within a defined "framework" (not listed on site) they would get awards.
-At some point another court says that the letter was a commitment and from what I can parse from the Supreme court ruling, it was maybe a stretch to give that kind of weight to the one letter absent other meetings, etc you get my drift. So they upheld the initial arbitration ruling. They used a bit over the top language that the likes of Felger and others like to trot out.
-To me the key point is this section:
Judicial review of a labor-arbitration decision pursuant to such an agreement is very limited. Courts are not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement. Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc.,484 U.S. 29, 36 (1987). We recently reiterated that if an “ ‘arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority,’ the fact that ‘a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.’ ” Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000) (quoting Misco, supra, at 38). It is only when the arbitrator strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively “dispense his own brand of industrial justice” that his decision may be unenforceable. Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 (1960). When an arbitrator resolves disputes regarding the application of a contract, and no dishonesty is alleged, the arbitrator’s “improvident, even silly, factfinding” does not provide a basis for a reviewing court to refuse to enforce the award. Misco, 484 U.S., at 39.
I don't speak legal lingo but what I take is that the original abitrator's view on the one document was not so out in left field and did not fit the "industrial justice" words from that court.
- The intial abitrator Thomas T Roberts was actually independent and had ruled, and would rule in the future, against the MLB. He was not an MLB plant
In sum, I don't think this is what's called "settled law" in this case at all. Anyone trotting out this lame case has not read it and is not credible. Almost nothing is the same.
