Fate of Baseball Placed in Hands of the Courts : Labor: As expected, union files complaint against owners with NLRB. Result in 4-6 weeks.

The decision on whether baseball’s salary cap stays or goes is now up to the federal government and federal courts.

As expected, players began their legal attempt to overturn the cap Tuesday, filing an unfair-labor-practice charge against owners with the National Labor Relations Board.

Players claimed the owners began negotiations with the intention of forcing a cap.

Owners, having lost two cases in two tries with the NLRB this month, also filed a charge against the union, claiming the players have refused to bargain over wages.

“We’ll talk to the parties about the need for relief and begin the investigative process immediately, which means within a day or two,” said Daniel Silverman, the NLRB’s New York regional director. “Most cases are investigated within four to six weeks. We’ll try to stick to that timetable.”

If Silverman finds merit to either charge, he will ask Fred Feinstein, the NLRB’s general counsel in Washington, to issue a complaint, which is tantamount to an indictment.

If the agency issues a complaint against the owners, Feinstein may ask the five-member NLRB for permission to seek a preliminary injunction against the cap in federal court, probably in Manhattan. That could lead to a court hearing on the cap in February or March.

If a judge issues an injunction, the pre-cap system will return, including salary arbitration, until the case is decided, which could be any time between 1996 and 1999, depending on appeals.

Don Fehr, main union negotiator, said, “From the beginning, the clubs have had one and only one thought in mind, forcing a salary cap upon the players. As the investigation proceeds, we are confident the board will come to see that the clubs entered into negotiations with no intention of reaching an agreement other than upon the clubs’ preconceived terms.”

The owners broke off negotiations last Thursday, declaring an impasse in bargaining, their right under federal labor law. They implemented the cap Friday.

The union is reviewing the rules owners implemented and will decide whether to recommend if players should sign contracts until there is a legal determination on the cap.

The owners claim the union bargained in bad faith, accusing players of refusing to negotiate wages on a collective basis, unlawfully insisting on the individual negotiation of wages and salary arbitration, and engaging in surface bargaining that wasn’t real.

Last week, Silverman issued a complaint against owners for failing to make a $7.8-million payment Aug. 1 to the players’ benefit plan. A trial on that is scheduled for March 14 before an administrative law judge.

Silverman also dismissed management’s charge that the union had violated the law by threatening violence against potential strikebreakers. Owners say they will appeal his dismissal to the NLRB.

“We are, of course, mindful of the great public interest in the resolution of this dispute,” Silverman said. “It should be emphasized to the public that our role is to protect the collective bargaining process, but not to require any party to agree to a proposal or to require them to make a concession. This dispute must be settled by the parties themselves.”