Union Might Act on Claire’s Call : Dodgers: Major League Players Assn. says disclosure to media of contract offer to Valenzuela may indicate collusion.

The Dodgers’ disclosure of their contract offer to free-agent pitcher Fernando Valenzuela has left the Major League Players Assn. concerned that collusion still exists. And the union says it is prepared to take immediate action designed to stop the clubs from exchanging information on free-agent offers.

“It was extremely unfortunate and extremely inappropriate,” Don Fehr, the union’s executive director, said Friday. “And if Fernando has been damaged--as we think he has--then steps will be taken to rectify the damage, either individually or as part of a broader action.”

A broader action would be filing a grievance on behalf of all free agents accusing the clubs of violating the collective bargaining agreement by negotiating in concert. In other words: Collusion IV.

The players’ union also could file strictly on Valenzuela’s behalf.

Fehr refused to speculate on his ultimate course but said he would lodge an immediate complaint with the owners’ Player Relations Committee and arbitrator George Nicolau, who is presiding over the Collusion II and III cases.

“If this was an isolated incident, we might look on it in different terms, but the clubs aren’t exactly operating from a clean slate,” Fehr said.

“I mean, this is exactly the type of collusive action that we didn’t think we’d see this time. It’s inappropriate and ought to be stopped.”

How was Valenzuela damaged by the Dodgers’ revelation that they have offered him $1.5 million for 1990 and an option at the same figure in 1991, with a $350,000 buyout if they didn’t pick up the option?

Dick Moss, who is Valenzuela’s attorney and works in conjunction with agent Tony DeMarco, put it this way: “By going public with their ‘low-ball’ offer, the Dodgers are saying to other clubs, ‘Look, this is all you have to beat.’ It inhibits Fernando’s ability to function as a free agent.

“It’s improper behavior, and we’re very angry about it. A general manager from another club even told me that he thought it was dirty pool.”

Moss and Fehr both said they viewed the Dodger action as a response to the owners’ committee’s elimination of last year’s information bank, the process by which clubs filed all of their free-agent offers with a central office, which then made them available to other clubs.

With this process, negotiations were often conducted in incremental rather than sweeping steps. And that was a basis for the union grievance now known as Collusion III.

Barry Rona, the Player Relations Committee’s executive director, said Friday that the information bank was created to help turn a frigid market competitive after the clubs lost Collusion I. It was dismantled, he said, because of the union’s continued hostility to it, and the fact that it served its purpose, helping to restore competitiveness to the free-agent market last winter, a competitiveness that he said seems apparent again.

Rona cited the San Francisco Giants’ signing of Houston Astro outfielder Kevin Bass for three years at a total of $5.25 million Thursday and the Atlanta Braves’ signing of Boston Red Sox first baseman Nick Esasky for three years at a total of $5.7 million Friday.

Fehr, however, said the Dodgers had violated the clubs’ own directive about exchanging information and had done it flagrantly in a public forum.

“Be it a boycott, price-fixing or an information bank, there have been many forms of collusion, and this seems to be another,” Fehr said.

Fred Claire, the Dodgers’ executive vice president, revealed details of the Valenzuela offer Tuesday in a conference call to reporters who cover the club.

The Times, quoting DeMarco, had reported in Tuesday’s editions that the Dodgers had extended their one-year offer to include an option year. The $1.5-million offer for 1990 had been reported previously in The Times.

Claire said Friday that it is his policy to negotiate privately, but since some of the details--including Valenzuela’s request for a three-year, $6-million contract--had been published in The Times Tuesday and obviously released by Valenzuela’s representatives, he decided “it might as well all be there and be accurate.”

Informed of the response by Moss and Fehr, Claire said: “My reaction to that is one of surprise. I wasn’t exchanging information with other clubs, merely confirming what had already been said, what was already there in print. The information was already out. I mean, all of this comes under the heading of what we’re trying to accomplish, and what we’re still trying to accomplish is to sign Fernando.”

Rona, reached in New York, dismissed the grievance threat.

“There’s a tendency on the part of many agents to carry their negotiations into the media in the belief that it creates pressure on the club,” he said. “No matter what you think of that, it’s certainly appropriate for the club to defend itself by responding with the total and accurate story.”

The lines of communication between Valenzuela and the Dodgers remain open, Claire said.

Has Valenzuela heard from any other clubs?

“Some have called to lay a little groundwork, but most of the clubs that need pitching are following a similar course,” Moss said. “They say they’re interested but have to sort out their position with Mark Langston first.”

Langston and agent Arn Tellem met with representatives of the San Diego Padres in Los Angeles Friday.

Tellem said that his meetings, to this point, have been general in nature, designed to inform Langston about the respective teams and organizations and lay the groundwork for ensuing negotiations. Those will begin Monday, with the Dodgers and Angels among the first to bargain.