CB 603 Readings[1] - Sports Arbitration Thomas T Roberts-1986 Arbitrator Part I Discusses the topic of arbitration and drugs in baseball Discusses

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Sports Arbitration – Thomas T. Roberts -1986 Arbitrator Part I:   Discusses the topic of arbitration and drugs in baseball. Discusses that in 1983 the  owners and the players association began talks to create a joint project that would provide  “education and treatment of chemical dependence and or abuse problems in the major leagues.  This program would take the place of assistance programs run by the individual teams and  would have primary jurisdiction over this matter. Part II:  The Joint Drug Agreement: - May24, 1984 an agreement was reached that which each  side could get out of before the end of the year. Agreement “provided a mechanism by which use, abuse and dependence problems related to  certain substances, specifically cocaine, can be recognized and the individual involved is  specifically encouraged to seek and secure professional assistance in overcoming that  problem No testing for drugs Unless their “was reason to believe” determined made by a medical panel Testing with treatment and after-care A player who refused to participate in the program would be placed outside of it and in  turn the overall contract Did not call for mandatory drug testing for everyone in the unit Part III:  The Breakdown of the joint Drug Agreement In the fall of 1985, Curtis Strong was convicted of selling cocaine and many of his clients  were baseball players The Commissioner urged each the teams to submit their players to three random drug  tests. The Player’s association resisted this change to the policy. The owners then terminated the drug policy (a right they had) Going into the 1986 season 550 players had to resign their contracts as they had  expired. The owners forced them to agree to a voluntary drug testing program in their  contract. Part IV : Arbitration Players association said that the teams must bargain with them over drug policies and  not individual players.  In the CBA it says that the player’s association is the sole bargaining agent when it  comes down to terms and conditions of employment.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Yet, there is a clause for “special convents” that would provide benefit that goes beyond  the Uniform Players Contract, it is a negotiated addendum that the player must sign.  This things include: providing a player with a single room or airfare for their wife  Owners argued that this provision would add a benefit to the players, were a legitimate  convent and therefore was out of the scope of the agreement. PA said no, and that it was only benefiting the club
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2009 for the course ILRCB 6030 taught by Professor Kahnl during the Spring '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 6

CB 603 Readings[1] - Sports Arbitration Thomas T Roberts-1986 Arbitrator Part I Discusses the topic of arbitration and drugs in baseball Discusses

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online