Sports Arbitration Cases - Essay Example

Sports Arbitration Cases and their Practical Compliance with the of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes In 1977, a joint committee of the special committee of the American Arbitration Association (AMA) and a special committee of the American Bar Association (ABA) prepared the original Code of Ethics for Arbitrators. In 2003, this was revised by an ABA Task Force and a special committee of the AAA emphasizing neutrality and construction on the conduct of arbitrators with ten canons. Use of arbitration in disputes have grown extensively and already established a significant part of the judicial system for fair determination of legal rights and the major American sports leagues have time and again sorted to arbitration to resolve cases, individual, organizational, or otherwise. MLB vs. Umpires One prominent and lingering case was of the Major League Baseball's (MLB) and the Major League Umpires Association in 1999 arbitrated by Alan Symonette, chosen by both parties. The case, filed in 1999 with actual hearing from December 13 to August 29, 2000 took months for the working out of legal papers as Symonette wrote his 100-page decision. Both parties expressed positive and negative reactions with Symonette's decision showing impartiality on his part and adherence to the canons of the code with Canon I explicitly stating "An Arbitrator should uphold the integrity and fairness of the arbitration process." Symonette proved his responsibility to both the MLB and the umpires by having their needs and disputes meet halfway as nine umpires were hired back inclusive of back pays while the 13 other umpires who were dismissed remained as they were. Under Canon I, section F stating "An arbitrator should conduct the arbitration process so as to advance the fair and efficient resolution of the matters submitted for decision. An arbitrator should make all reasonable efforts to prevent delaying tactics, harassment of parties or other participants, or other abuse or disruption of the arbitration process," as well as Canon IV's "An Arbitrator Should Conduct the Proceedings Fairly and Diligently" under section E, "When the Arbitrator determines that more information than has been presented by the parties is required to decide the case, it is not improper for the arbitrator to ask questions, call witnesses, and request documents or other evidence, including expert testimony," Symonette have shown careful deliberation despite the lingering of the case (AP, 2005). NBA Teams vs. Player/s Another example of an National Basketball Association (NBA) arbitration case is that of Nate Huffman and the Toronto Raptors arbitrated by Roger Kaplan jointly approved by both parties. The case involving the termination of a three-year contract of Huffman after only six months had the team contend that Huffman did not fully disclose his medical history of his knee problems prior to signing the contract. Kaplan ruled out that Raptors have to pay the remaining $2.56 million on Huffman's terminated contract. With an implication that Huffman did inform the management about his knee problems, Kaplan have shown careful deliberation and adherence to Canon I's section E provision that "When an arbitrator's authority is derived from the agreement of the parties, an arbitrator should neither exceed that authority nor do less than than is required to exercise that authority completely. Where the agreement of the parties sets forth procedures to be followed in conducting the arbitration or refers to rules to be followed, it is the obligation of the arbitrator to comply with such procedures or rules. An arbitrator has no ethical obligation to comply with any agreement, procedures or rules that are unlawful or that, in the arbitrator's judgment would be inconsistent with this Code." By referring to the contract signed by the Toronto Raptors and Huffman, Kaplan complied with the agreement of the parties in conducting the arbitration process. The Raptors showed unclear message by claiming Huffman did not fully disclosed his medical record, meaning that Huffman did but later found out by the Raptors unsubstantial, and it was not clearly indicated that full disclosure could cause termination of the contract. One case that stood out was Latrell Sprewell's case when the NBA suspended him for a year for choking his coach. An arbitrator reduced his suspension and reinstated his contract between the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association that bewildered not only AAA critics but the public in general. This is one case that contests the neutrality of the arbitrator as another case was called for involving 150 Delta Air Pilots against the Airline Pilots Association, a case lifted up to the U.S. Supreme Court (Almansi, 2001). The Almansi (2001) paper contented that "Critics say unions want arbitration -- rather than the courts -- to be the ultimate voice in worker-union disputes because the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) are written to favor organized labor: only the union can invoke the arbitration process (or can do so without worker consent); only union officials are allowed to "describe the issues involved;" and normal courtroom rules regarding evidence and witnesses do not apply." Almansi (2001) further added, "The AAA itself lacks even the appearance of impartiality, say critics, since its board of directors includes such labor leaders as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, American Federation of Teachers President Sandra Feldman and National Treasury Employees Union President Robert Tobias." It cannot be argued that there are lapses in all forms of judgment even among court judges so that non-legal binding arbitration cases, executed by both parties as a diplomatic handshake could be difficult to overturn in court unless bias is established. If biased is established, an upfront violation of the Code's impartiality and neutrality of arbitrator, then, the arbitrator gets all the negative implication and could have a difficult time advancing his or her career as an arbitrator. If only one side is found to be sided in a certain issue or dispute, it is definite that a case would be filed in court to establish a just decision. Arbitration organizations also get dragged down in unpopular cases such as the one mentioned above and gives the whole body of arbitrators a shadow of mistrust. This would also endanger the integrity of the AAA that would lessen its popularity and use. NFL Team/s vs. Player/s Under the National Football League, a case between Ricky Williams and the Miami Dolphins had Williams ordered to repay the team $8.6 million in bonus money after severing his contract. The case, contested in Federal Court had the Federal Judge upheld the arbitration ruling showed that arbitration is paying close heed to neutrality and impartiality as well as capability to handle cases as provided for by Canon V stating "An arbitrator should make decisions in a just, independent and deliberate manner" with emphasis on section B stating that "An arbitrator should decide all matters justly, exercising independent judgment, and should not permit outside pressure to affect the decision." Another adherence by all three cases already mentioned is Canon VI's provision "An arbitrator should be faithful to the relationship of trust and confidentiality inherent in that office." Observed all throughout is that despite the aggressiveness of Western media as well as the clout of league team owners, impartiality was also exercised to establish trust while the cases were ongoing. No leaks nor damaging implications and speculations were spread about in arbitration proceedings and no implicating events followed shortly or long after the cases were ruled out. As Canon VI further stressed in the following sections, " A. An arbitrator is in a relationship of trust to the parties and should not, at any time, use confidential information acquired during the arbitration proceeding to gain personal advantage or advantage for others, or to affect adversely the interest of another; B. The arbitrator should keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration proceedings and decision. An arbitrator may obtain help from an associate, a research assistant or other persons in connection with reaching his or her decision if the arbitrator informs the parties of the use of such assistance and such persons agree to be bound by the provisions of this Canon; C. It is not proper at any time for an arbitrator to inform anyone of any decision in advance of the time it is given to all parties. In a proceeding in which there is more than one arbitrator, it is not proper at any time for an arbitrator to inform anyone about the substance of the deliberations of the arbitrators. After an arbitration award has been made, it is not proper for an arbitrator to assist in proceedings to enforce or challenge the award; and D. Unless the parties so request, an arbitrator should not appoint himself or herself to a separate office related to the subject matter of the dispute, such as receiver or trustee, nor should a panel of arbitrators appoint one of their number to such an office." NHL Case Sample In another case involving St. Louis Blues and star forward Pavol Demitra, a National Hockey League (NHL) arbitration ruled out that Demitra would either earn $6.5 million the following season or walk as an unrestricted free agent from the Blues. Similar other cases were either ruled out with players getting salary increases or not during the 2003 filing of salary arbitration as Richard Matvitchuk of the Dallas Stars retained his salary of $2.2 million, New York Rangers' Tom Poti with modest increase from $2.8 million to $3.1 million, Boston Bruins' turning down defenseman Bryan Bernard, Phoenix Coyotes Daymond Langkow getting $2.7 million from his previous $2.5, and Boston Bruis' Brian Rolston receiving a $3.175 million contract from his last season's $2.2 million. Salary arbitration cases are both a risk and a gamble for players and teams but each has its own legal rights to to be assessed and weighed by the neutral arbitrator, most of the time single but jointly approved by both parties. As Canon IV states: An arbitrator should conduct the proceedings fairly and diligently" and states further that "A. An arbitrator should conduct the proceedings in an even-handed manner. The arbitrator should be patient and courteous to the parties, their representatives, and the witnesses and should encourage similar conduct by all participants; B. The arbitrator should afford to all parties the right to be heard and due notice of the time and place of any hearing. The arbitrator should allow each party a fair opportunity to present its evidence and arguments; C. The arbitrator should not deny any party the opportunity to be represented by counsel or by any other person chosen by the party; D. If a party fails to appear after due notice, the arbitrator should proceed with the arbitration when authorized to do so, but only after receiving assurance that appropriate notice has been given to the absent party; E. When the arbitrator determines that more information than has been presented by the parties is required to decide the case, it is not improper for the arbitrator to ask questions, call witnesses, and request documents or other evidence, including expert testimony; F. Although it is not improper for an arbitrator to suggest to the parties that they discuss the possibility of settlement or the use of mediation, or other dispute resolution processes, an arbitrator should not exert pressure on any party to settle or to utilize other dispute resolution processes. An arbitrator should not be present or otherwise participate in settlement discussions or act as a mediator unless requested to do so by all parties; and G. Co-arbitrators should afford each other full opportunity to participate in all aspects of the proceedings." The teams have options to either accept the raise or set free their players which are but just fair for both parties seeking a legal remedy for stand-offs. For reasonable causes, players and teams would avoid resorting to arbitration if they find results questionable and biased. But since most sports arbitrators comply with the Code and its ten canons, the NHL salary arbitration cases were mostly proper business trading and negotiation as heard by an impartial arbitrator with unquestionable track records. The capability of the player as well as previous or existing contracts with the teams, and the benefits of the teams were all carefully considered in each decision where either the team abide by the salary increase or retainment or set the player free. Another case held by independent arbitrator Stephen Netzle involved Russian player Nikolai Zherdev as recruited then by the NHL's Columbus Blue Jackets ruled out that no violation of IIHF and NHL agreement occurred while the Ice Hockey Federation of Russia invoked Zherdev's compulsory military service so that he cannot be allowed to transfer to NHL for the 2003-2004 season (IIHF, 2003). A paragraph in the IIHF-NHL agreement states that a player cannot sign an NHL contract if he is under military obligations but the arbitrator ruled out that the military obligation in Russia was unfounded. This NHL case proves that individual legal rights can also be protected and established in international settings as long as contenders can properly and judiciously prove that there are no violations for previous agreements or contracts. Since it was not established that Sherdev was already drafted and is beholden to the Russian military service, it was but a just move to allow him to enter into a contract as player for the NHL. Likewise, it was not also established that Sherdev violated or breached any contract with the CSKA Hockey Club that called for the arbitration. Another notable feature of the arbitration process, although some had been conceived as erroneous and grossly biased, is the absence of money and compensation issues in any form of media, print or broadcast although standard rates maybe found elsewhere. Although not legally binding, arbitration are becoming more and more practical even if these are handshake formality negotiations between parties. This feature in major American sports arbitration is another testament that Canon VII that states: An arbitrator should adhere to standards of integrity and fairness when making arrangements for compensation and reimbursement of expenses" further adding in the following sections that "A. Arbitrators who are to be compensated for their services or reimbursed for their expenses shall adhere to standards of integrity and fairness in making arrangements for such payments; B. Certain practices relating to payments are generally recognized as tending to preserve the integrity and fairness of the arbitration process. These practices include: (1) Before the arbitrator finally accepts appointment, the basis of payment, including any cancellation fee, compensation in the event of withdrawal and compensation for study and preparation time, and all other charges, should be established. Except for arrangements for the compensation of party-appointed arbitrators, all parties should be informed in writing of the terms established; (2) In proceedings conducted under the rules or administration of an institution that is available to assist in making arrangements for payments, communication related to compensation should be made through the institution. In proceedings where no institution has been engaged by the parties to administer the arbitration, any communication with arbitrators (other than party appointed arbitrators) concerning payments should be in the presence of all parties; and (3) Arbitrators should not, absent extraordinary circumstances, request increases in the basis of their compensation during the course of a proceeding." This could also be the case due to the proper conduct and behavior of arbitrators in general, which is worthy of notice and applause. As long as these procedures are carefully followed, it is definite that issues and conflicts that could tarnish the arbitrators' organizing body and Code are avoided and diminished, but most unlikely eliminated. Conclusion Arbitration as can be established is a popular form of the public conducting themselves in civilized mediation of conflicts basically commercial. Since its nature involves financial aspects, it could no doubt cast shadow over its partiality and impartiality no matter how much integrity the AAA and the ABA may trumpet over it. With popular fair settlements that is most often favored against long strikes and stand-offs usually between unions and managements, or individual worker/employees against management or union, arbitration proved useful for a long time now. It cannot be contented that settlements may also proved swaggering in a side or another at times and may not be perceived as equal and ultimately fair at all times, its practicality is its main selling point. How the arbitrators themselves maintain neutral, just and fair ruling or settlement could maintain arbitration's popularity and usefulness. And as for the Code and its ten canons, a punishment or penalty must be meted out and decided among themselves through organized committees to further advance proper conduct of ethics among its members. It is not enough that the Code have established its ten canons. The organizing body must also establish more appropriate and stricter rules for its arbitrator members in order not to cast shadow on the body and the Code. As critics already pointed out, there is a perceived partiality towards unions, and yet, biased against the individual members. It could only be deduced that labor union leaders are favored by arbitrators in most cases and management as well as individual workers or employees or union members are in peril. This is a very damaging concept and perception. It will definitely reduce the popularity of the union as shown in the NBA's no-show in an arbitration case between players involved in a brawl with the audience. When bodies, commercial or otherwise, have shown indifference towards arbitration proceedings and arbitration per se, a damage to the image and the arbitration body ensued, and a noble, unquestionable act or decision must be produced in order to revive a believable body and Code. Reference: Almansi, David. "Mad About the Sprewell Case Blame Labor Unions". Idea House. NPAPaper 187. 2001. Associated Press (AP). "Brown hit ,286 with 17 home runs, 86 RBI in 2005." MLB. February 7, 2006. Associated Press (AP). "Arbitrator orders rehiring of nine umps." MLB.TV. May 11, 2005. Associated Press (AP). "Demitra led Blues with 93 points last season." August 5, 2005. Dworkin, James and Paul Staudohar. "Even Umpires Sometimes Strike Out." Nine, Vol 10, 2002. Fitzpatrick, Jamie. "2003 NHL Salary Arbitration Results." About.com. 2006. IIHF. "Arbitration verdict on Zherdev announced: clear to play in Columbus. 2003. Skidmore, Greg. "Williams Loses Arbitration, But May Win Free Agency." Sports Law Blog. September 28. 2004. Stein, Mark. "Raptors must pay Huffman remainder of contract." Wise, Mike. "Plus: Pro Basketball - N.B.A. Lockout; Arbitration Sides Wrap Up Hearing." New York Times, September 10. 1998. Read More