Was A-Rod Smart To Walk Out on his Arbitration?

yankee-baseball_72DPI_RGBDid embattled Yankee third baseman Alex Rodriguez make a sound strategic judgment in walking out of his grievance arbitration hearing yesterday concerning his 211-game, PED-related suspension after the arbitrator denied his request to have MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, the person who made the suspension decision, testify?  Should you do the same thing when an arbitrator treats you the same way?  The answer in both instances is no.

Here is why.  Walking out on his arbitration (and throwing a tantrum) will only hurt A-Rod – and such conduct would only hurt you.  There is no countervailing benefit.  Under Connecticut’s and most other state’s arbitration statutes, as is the case under the Federal Arbitration Act, the hearing will continue without the protesting party’s presence.  The walkout won’t impair the arbitrator’s ability to issue a valid award.  The protesting party is simply relinquishing his or her right to be present.  This could mean converting a likely arbitration loss into a certain loss.

Well, you say, “What if I know I can’t win without this witnesses’ testimony (assuming I can elicit from him what I hope to elicit)?”  The answer is you don’t lose anything by staying.  After an adverse arbitration award, you can always move the court to vacate it on the statutory ground that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct “in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy.”  Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-418.  If you’re successful and there is a new arbitration hearing, you can be sure the new arbitrator will allow you to present the witness.

Maybe the more interesting question in the A-Rod case is why would the arbitrator render his award vulnerable to being overturned by a court for refusing A-Rod’s request to have Selig appear and be questioned on how he arrived at his decision?   We can only guess at the reason, but the MLB may have made a mistake in fighting Selig’s appearance.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page