Arbitration Still Is a Stumbling Block : Baseball: If agreement is not reached by Thursday, players’ union head plans to break off talks temporarily.

There was no progress Tuesday in the attempt to remove the issue of arbitration eligibility as the last major stumbling block in baseball’s collective bargaining negotiations, but there were these developments:

--Don Fehr, executive director of the Major League Players Assn., said that if it did not appear a settlement could be reached with reasonable quickness by Thursday he would break off the talks to meet with players at various locales.

Fehr said that Thursday is pivotal because it’s the last day a settlement could be reached in time for the locked training camps to open by Feb. 28, the mandatory reporting date.

Fehr said that if he leaves the talks it is doubtful he would return before March 5, meaning almost a week of exhibition games would have been wiped out and a delay in the April 2 start of the regular season would seem certain.

--Cognizant of the time factor, Charles O’Connor, general counsel of the owners’ Player Relations Committee, said he would present a new proposal today aimed at relieving the arbitration impasse.

O’Connor said his proposal was not as radical as revenue sharing but would liberalize certain facets already in the collective bargaining agreement. He said it would maintain the three-year requirement for arbitration eligibility but respond to the union’s concern for younger players by “sweetening the pot” in other areas.

O’Connor would not be specific, but it is believed he is prepared to meet the union’s desire for:

--An increase in the minimum salary to $100,000 or more.

--A return to the 25-man roster rather than 24.

--Immediate free agency for players outrighted to the minors.

All of that would be in lieu of rolling the eligibility requirement for arbitration back to two years, as the union proposes. The union claims it agreed to raise the requirement from two to three years during the 1985 negotiations as a concession to the owners’ claims of financial distress and now, in a time of prosperity, should get that year back.

O’Connor said the clubs’ view of the ’85 agreement is not the same as that of the union.

“It was a bargain fairly struck,” he said of the arbitration agreement. “It was pro club, but there were other aspects (of the collective package) that were pro player.

“You can’t sit back and cherry pick five years later. That’s not the way negotiating is done.

“We’ve made substantial concessions already and are prepared to offer some significant alternatives to a rollback (in the arbitration requirement). Our proposal will keep it at three years.”

Asked if arbitration eligibility is the only remaining issue, O’Connor said, “No, but it is the centerpiece.”

The union has been adamant about a rollback. Fehr said he did not want to prejudge the PRC’s new proposal but felt a rollback stood alone and should not be tied to any other issues.

He said the PRC has known for 10 to 14 days that he would require a break in negotiations to update the players, and added that the inherent threat to the start of the season was a burden the owners would have to bear.

“The players didn’t waste two months discussing the philosophy of revenue sharing, and the players didn’t close the camps,” Fehr said.