## Facts

- Brian Shaw, a professional basketball player and NBPA member, signed a one-year contract with the Boston Celtics in 1988.
- In 1989, Shaw signed a two-year contract with Italian club Il Messaggero Roma that allowed him to rescind the second year by timely notice if he returned to play in the NBA.
- On January 23, 1990, Shaw signed a five-year NBA Uniform Player Contract with the Celtics, acknowledging the Italian contract and promising to cancel the Italian contract’s second year so he could play for Boston.
- The Uniform Player Contract incorporated the NBA–NBPA collective bargaining agreement (CBA) grievance and expedited arbitration procedure.
- Shaw later informed the Celtics he intended to remain in Italy for the 1990–91 season rather than rescind the second year of the Italian contract.
- The Celtics initiated expedited arbitration under the CBA; the arbitrator ruled Shaw was obligated to rescind the Italian second year and play for the Celtics, and the NBPA supported the arbitrator’s result.
- The Celtics sought judicial enforcement; the district court confirmed the arbitration award and issued a preliminary injunction requiring Shaw to terminate the Italian contract and not play for any other team during the relevant term except the Celtics.
- Shaw appealed, challenging enforcement of the award and the preliminary injunction, including on grounds of asserted procedural unfairness and inadequate discovery.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly enforced a labor-arbitration award, issued under an NBA–NBPA CBA, requiring Shaw to rescind the second year of his Italian contract and perform exclusively for the Celtics.
2. Whether the district court properly issued a preliminary injunction compelling Shaw’s compliance with the arbitration award and restraining him from playing for other teams.
3. Whether alleged procedural deficiencies (including limits on discovery and evidentiary development) required vacatur of the award or reversal of the injunction.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order enforcing the arbitration award and granting preliminary injunctive relief.
- The court held the arbitration award was lawful and within the arbitrator’s authority under the CBA-based arbitration agreement.
- The court rejected Shaw’s challenges to the expedited arbitration procedure and his complaints about limited district-court discovery and fact development, given the limited scope of review of labor-arbitration awards.
- The court upheld the preliminary injunction, concluding the equitable factors supported compelling compliance with the confirmed arbitration award.

## Legal Principles

- Federal labor law strongly favors enforcement of labor-arbitration awards issued pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, with judicial review narrowly limited.
- A court does not re-try the merits of a CBA arbitration dispute; it asks whether the arbitrator acted within delegated authority and whether the award draws its essence from the parties’ agreement.
- Contractual obligations undertaken in an NBA Uniform Player Contract, when governed by an incorporated CBA arbitration clause, may be enforced through arbitration and subsequent judicial confirmation.
- Preliminary injunctive relief may issue to enforce a confirmed labor-arbitration award where the movant shows likelihood of success, irreparable harm, favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest in stable CBA dispute-resolution mechanisms.
- Limits on discovery in enforcement proceedings are permissible where the court’s role is deferential review and enforcement, not de novo adjudication.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed enforcement of a CBA-based arbitration award and a preliminary injunction requiring an NBA player to honor his contract with the Celtics, rescind a conflicting foreign-club commitment, and refrain from playing elsewhere, applying highly deferential review to labor arbitration and endorsing injunctive enforcement to protect the bargained-for arbitration process.


Bos. Celtics Ltd. P'ship v. Shaw, 908 F.2d 1041 (1st Cir. 1990)