## Facts

- Major League Baseball clubs, represented in bargaining by the Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee (PRC), negotiated with the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) under a Basic Agreement effective January 1, 1990.
- After the Basic Agreement expired, negotiations continued but stalled during the 1994–95 labor dispute.
- The clubs declared an impasse and unilaterally implemented changes affecting (i) salary arbitration for certain reserve players, (ii) rules governing free agency/competitive bargaining for certain players, and (iii) the agreement’s anti-collusion provision.
- The MLBPA filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB’s General Counsel issued a complaint alleging the clubs violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) by making unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment before a lawful impasse.
- The NLRB, through Regional Director Daniel Silverman, petitioned in federal district court for interim injunctive relief under NLRA § 10(j) pending the Board’s final adjudication.
- The district court granted a temporary injunction requiring the PRC and clubs to comply with the expired Basic Agreement, rescind inconsistent actions, and bargain in good faith; the PRC and clubs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether there was reasonable cause to believe the PRC and clubs violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment before reaching a lawful impasse.
2. Whether the challenged provisions governing salary arbitration, reserve/free-agency arrangements, and anti-collusion were mandatory subjects of bargaining.
3. Whether interim relief under NLRA § 10(j) restoring the status quo and requiring good-faith bargaining was “just and proper” pending the NLRB’s final decision.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s § 10(j) injunction.
- The court held the district court properly found reasonable cause to believe the clubs unlawfully implemented unilateral changes to mandatory subjects of bargaining before impasse.
- The court upheld the finding that interim relief was just and proper to preserve the status quo and the effectiveness of the NLRB’s eventual remedy.
- The injunction required the PRC and clubs to (i) abide by the expired Basic Agreement, (ii) rescind actions inconsistent with it, and (iii) bargain in good faith with the MLBPA, pending specified terminating events (such as a new agreement or final Board action).

## Legal Principles

- A federal court considering NLRA § 10(j) relief applies a two-part inquiry: (1) whether there is reasonable cause to believe an NLRA violation occurred, and (2) whether injunctive relief is just and proper.
- Under NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5), an employer generally may not unilaterally change mandatory subjects of bargaining—wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment—absent a lawful impasse.
- Salary arbitration and reserve/free-agency arrangements that determine or directly affect players’ compensation and employment terms may constitute mandatory bargaining subjects, making unilateral alteration potentially unlawful.
- § 10(j) relief may require restoration of the pre-change status quo to prevent interim employer gains from alleged unlawful conduct from undermining collective bargaining and the Board’s remedial authority.
- In reviewing § 10(j) orders, the court does not finally decide the merits of the unfair labor practice charge; it evaluates whether the district court properly applied the statutory standard and whether the record supports reasonable cause and just-and-proper findings.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld interim § 10(j) relief requiring Major League Baseball’s bargaining representative and clubs to restore and maintain the terms of the expired Basic Agreement and bargain in good faith, because the record supported reasonable cause to believe the clubs made unilateral changes to mandatory bargaining subjects before a lawful impasse and because a status-quo injunction was necessary to preserve effective NLRB remedies.


Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Comm., Inc., 67 F.3d 1054 (2d Cir. 1995)