## Facts

- The Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc. (PRC) represented the major league clubs (owners) in collective bargaining; the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) represented major league players.
- The parties’ collective bargaining agreement (the Basic Agreement) governed salary arbitration for certain players, free agency after specified service, and an anti-collusion provision limiting coordinated conduct among clubs affecting player pay.
- After the Basic Agreement expired and negotiations for a successor agreement broke down during the 1994–95 labor dispute, the owners, through the PRC, unilaterally:
  - eliminated salary arbitration for certain players,
  - altered the existing free-agency system, and
  - removed the anti-collusion clause.
- The NLRB issued a complaint alleging the unilateral changes, made before a lawful bargaining impasse, violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5).
- The NLRB’s Regional Director petitioned for a preliminary injunction under NLRA § 10(j) to restore the status quo pending final Board adjudication.

## Issues

1. Whether there was reasonable cause to believe the owners violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) by unilaterally changing free-agency rules, salary-arbitration procedures, and the anti-collusion provision before a lawful impasse.
2. Whether free agency, salary arbitration, and anti-collusion provisions are mandatory subjects of bargaining (terms and conditions of employment) for purposes of the § 10(j) reasonable-cause analysis.
3. Whether interim injunctive relief was just and proper to preserve the Board’s remedial authority and the status quo pending completion of administrative proceedings.

## Decision

- The court granted the NLRB’s § 10(j) petition in substantial part.
- The court found reasonable cause to believe the owners committed unfair labor practices by unilaterally eliminating salary arbitration, changing free-agency rules, and removing the anti-collusion clause before a lawful impasse.
- The court concluded that, for § 10(j) purposes, the challenged provisions were mandatory bargaining subjects because they directly governed wages and the economic relationship between players and clubs.
- The court held injunctive relief was just and proper to restore the status quo ante and prevent the owners’ changes from undermining collective bargaining and the effectiveness of any eventual Board order.
- The injunction required the owners to:
  - abide by the terms of the expired Basic Agreement,
  - rescind actions inconsistent with that agreement, and
  - bargain in good faith with the MLBPA.
- The Second Circuit affirmed an order requiring adherence to the expired agreement, rescission of inconsistent actions, and good-faith bargaining.

## Legal Principles

- Under NLRA § 10(j), a federal court may grant interim relief upon a showing of reasonable cause to believe an NLRA violation occurred and that relief is just and proper.
- An employer generally may not unilaterally change mandatory subjects of bargaining after contract expiration unless bargaining obligations are satisfied, including reaching a lawful impasse.
- Wage-setting mechanisms and rules that directly determine compensation and bargaining leverage may constitute mandatory subjects of bargaining.
- Status quo ante relief may be warranted where unilateral employer action risks irreparable harm to collective bargaining or would make the Board’s eventual remedy ineffective.

## Conclusion

The court ordered interim relief restoring and enforcing key terms of the expired Basic Agreement because there was reasonable cause to believe the owners unlawfully made unilateral changes to mandatory bargaining subjects before impasse, and restoration was necessary to preserve the NLRB’s ability to provide effective final relief.


Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, 880 F. Supp. 246 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)