Major League Baseball (MLB) is making a significant change to its employment contracts. The league will no longer use uniform employee contracts (UECs), which were previously required for managers, coaches, trainers, and salaried scouts across all 30 teams. This change does not affect major or minor-league players. Instead, clubs will now draft their own contracts for employees, allowing for the possibility of varying terms from team to team.
The decision to eliminate UECs has raised concerns among some employees. One longtime scout expressed fear that teams may include language in the new contracts that could work against employees in new ways. On the other hand, some believe that this change could be used as a competitive advantage by teams to attract and retain top talent.
The primary reason behind this switch is to protect the league office against liability. By allowing teams to create their own contracts, it becomes more difficult to include the league as a joint-employer defendant in potential lawsuits. Additionally, this change may benefit the league in future antitrust litigation related to employment issues.
MLB has faced several employment lawsuits in recent years, including an age-discrimination lawsuit brought by scouts against both teams and the league office. The league also reached a $185 million settlement with minor leaguers last year. Moving away from UECs is seen as a way to mitigate potential legal risks for the league.
Garrett Broshuis, a lawyer who represented the minor-league players in the settlement case, believes that the impact of this change on affected employees will not be immediately clear. UECs were often criticized for including a tampering clause that restricted employees under contract from speaking to other teams. It remains uncertain whether this clause or similar issues will disappear with the elimination of UECs.
Broshuis emphasizes that the details of the new contracts will be crucial. He suggests that teams may initially mirror each other’s terms based on past practices but hopes that competition will eventually lead to more favorable terms for employees.
The unique antitrust exemption enjoyed by MLB in the past has played a role in upholding certain elements of UECs, such as the tampering clause. However, even with more disparate contracts, the exemption could still provide teams with confidence in maintaining some uniformity. Furthermore, a more varied contract structure may strengthen the league’s defense in potential antitrust litigation related to employment matters.
MLB’s antitrust exemption has faced criticism recently, particularly regarding its treatment of minor-league players and owners. A case brought by minor-league owners has been appealed to the Supreme Court. The elimination of UECs required a vote among MLB owners since they are stipulated in the Major League Rules, a governance document controlled by the league.
UECs were also in the spotlight in 2020 when MLB suspended employee contracts during the COVID-19 shutdown. This move further highlighted the significance of these contracts and their impact on employees.
In conclusion, MLB’s decision to eliminate uniform employee contracts marks a significant change in how the league manages its employment agreements. While the long-term impact on employees remains uncertain, this move is intended to protect the league from liability and potential antitrust litigation. The details of the new contracts drafted by individual teams will be crucial in determining the level of uniformity and fairness for employees across the league.