Cite as:532 U. S. ____ (2001) 1Per CuriamSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESMAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATIONv. STEVE GARVEYON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITEDSTATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITNo. 001210. Decided May 14, 2001PER CURIAM.The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit here rejectedanarbitratorsfactualfindingsandthenresolvedthemeritsofthepartiesdisputeinsteadofremandingthecaseforfurtherarbitrationproceedings.BecausetheCourtsdeterminationconflictswithourcaseslimitingreviewofanarbitratorsawardenteredpursuanttoanagreementbetweenanemployerandalabororganizationand prescribing the appropriate remedy where vacation ofthe award is warranted, we grant the petition for a writ ofcertiorari and reverse.The motions for leave to file briefsamicus curiae of the National Academy of Arbitrators andthe Office of the Commissioner of Baseball are granted.Inthelate1980s,petitionerMajorLeagueBaseballPlayersAssociation(Association)filedgrievancesagainsttheMajorLeagueBaseballClubs(Clubs),claimingtheClubshadcolludedinthemarketforfree-agentservicesafterthe1985,1986and1987baseballseasons,inviola-tionoftheindustryscollective-bargainingagreement.AfreeagentisaplayerwhomaycontractwithanyClub,ratherthanonewhoserighttocontractisrestrictedtoaparticular Club.In a series of decisions, arbitrators foundcollusionbytheClubsanddamagetotheplayers.TheAssociationandClubssubsequentlyenteredintoaGlobalSettlementAgreement(Agreement),pursuanttowhichthe Clubs established a $280 million fund to be distributedtoinjuredplayers.TheAssociationalsodesignedaFrameworktoevaluatetheindividualplayersclaims,2 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSN.v. GARVEYPer Curiamand, applying that Framework, recommended distributionplans for claims relating to a particular season or seasons.TheFrameworkprovidedthatplayerscouldseekanarbitrators review of the distribution plan.The arbitratorwoulddetermineonlywhethertheapprovedFrameworkandthecriteriasetforththereinhavebeenproperlyap-pliedintheproposedDistributionPlan.Garveyv.Rob-erts,203F. 3d580,583(CA92000)(GarveyI).TheFramework set forth factors to be considered in evaluatingplayersclaims,aswellasspecificrequirementsforlostcontract-extensionclaims.Suchclaimswerecognizable onlyinthosecaseswhereevidenceexiststhataspecificoffer of an extension was made by a club prior to collusiononlytothereafterbewithdrawnwhenthecollusionscheme was initiated. Id., at 584.RespondentSteveGarvey,aretired,highlyregardedfirstbaseman,submittedaclaimfordamagesofapproxi-mately$3million.HeallegedthathiscontractwiththeSan Diego Padres was not extended to the 1988 and 1989seasonsduetocollusion.TheAssociationrejectedGar-veysclaiminFebruary1996,becausehepresentednoevidencethatthePadresactuallyofferedtoextendhiscontract.Garvey objected, and an arbitration hearing washeld.HetestifiedthatthePadresofferedtoextendhiscontract for the 1988 and 1989 seasons and then withdrewthe offer after they began colluding with other teams.HepresentedaJune1996letterfromBallardSmith,PadresPresident and CEO from 1979 to 1987, stating that, beforetheendofthe1985season,SmithofferedtoextendGar-veyscontractthroughthe1989season,butthatthePa-dresrefusedtonegotiatewithGarveythereafterduetocollusion.ThearbitratordeniedGarveysclaim,afterseekingadditionaldocumentationfromtheparties.Inhisaward,heexplainedthat [t]hereexists. . . substantial doubt astothecredibilityofthestatementsintheSmithletter. Cite as:532 U. S. ____ (2001) 3Per CuriamId.,at586.Henotedthestarkcontradictionsbetweenthe1996letterandSmithstestimonyintheearlierarbi-tration proceedings regarding collusion, where Smith, likeother owners, denied collusion and stated that the Padressimply were not interested in extending Garveys contract.Ibid.The arbitrator determined that, due to these contra-dictions,he mustreject[Smiths]morerecentassertionthat Garvey did not receive [a contract] extension due tocollusion, and found that Garvey had not shown a specificoffer of extension.Ibid.He concluded that: [t]he shadow cast over the credibility of the Smith tes-timony coupled with the absence of any other corrobora-tion of the claim submitted by Garvey compels a findingthatthePadresdeclinedtoextendhiscontractnotbe-causeoftheconstraintsofthecollusioneffortoftheclubsbutratherasabaseballjudgmentfoundedupon[Garveys] age and recent injury history. Ibid.GarveymovedinFederalDistrictCourttovacatethearbitratorsaward,allegingthatthearbitratorviolatedtheFrameworkbydenyinghisclaim.TheDistrictCourtdeniedthemotion.TheCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitreversedbyadividedvote.Thecourtacknowl-edgedthatjudicialreviewofanarbitratorsdecisioninalabor dispute is extremely limited.But it held that reviewofthemeritsofthearbitratorsawardwaswarrantedinthiscase,becausethearbitrator dispensedhisownbrand of industrial justice. Id., at589. The court recog-nized that Smiths prior testimony with respect to collusionconflicted with the statements in his 1996 letter.But in thecourtsview,thearbitratorsrefusaltocreditSmithsletterwasinexplicableandborder[ed]ontheirrational,be-causeapanelofarbitrators,chairedbythearbitratorin-volved here, had previously concluded that the owners priortestimonywasfalse.Id.,at590.Thecourtrejectedthearbitratorsrelianceontheabsenceofothercorroboratingevidence, attributing that fact to Smith and Garveysdirect4 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSN.v. GARVEYPer Curiamnegotiations.The court also found that the record providedstrongsupportfor the truthfulness of Smiths 1996 letter.Id.,at591592.TheCourtofAppealsreversedandre-manded with directions to vacate the award.TheDistrictCourtthenremandedthecasetothearbi-trationpanelforfurtherhearings,andGarveyappealed.TheCourtofAppeals,againbyadividedvote,explainedthatGarveyIestablishedthattheconclusionthatSmithmadeGarveyanofferandsubsequentlywithdrewitbe-cause of the collusion scheme was the only conclusion thatthearbitratorcoulddrawfromtherecordintheproceed-ings.No.0056080,2000WL1801383,at*1(Dec.7,2000), judgt. order to be reported at 243 F. 3d 547. (Gar-vey II).Noting that its prior instructions might have beenunclear,theCourtclarifiedthatGarveyIleftonlyonepossibleresulttheresultourholdingcontemplatedanawardinGarveysfavor.Ibid.TheCourtofAppealsreversedtheDistrictCourtanddirectedthatitremandthe case to the arbitration panel with instructions to enteran award for Garvey in the amount he claimed.1Thepartiesdonotdisputethatthiscasearisesunder301oftheLaborManagementRelationsAct,1947,61Stat.156,29U. S.C.185(a),asthecontroversyinvolvesanassertionofrightsunderanagreementbetweenanemployerandalabororganization.AlthoughGarveysspecificallegationisthatthearbitratorviolatedthe1 Garveycontendsthat,becausetheAssociationspetitionwasfiledmorethan90daysafterGarveyI,wecannotconsiderachallengeraisingissuesresolvedinthatdecision.ButthereisnoquestionthattheAssociationspetitionwasfiledinsufficienttimeforustoreviewGarveyII,andwehaveauthoritytoconsiderquestionsdeterminedinearlier stages of the litigation where certiorari is sought from the mostrecent of the judgments of the Court of Appeals.Mercer v.Theriot, 377U. S. 152 (1964)(per curiam); Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v.Wolf Broth-ers & Co., 240 U. S. 251, 258 (1916).Cite as:532 U. S. ____ (2001) 5Per CuriamFramework for resolving players claims for damages, thatFramework was designed to facilitate payments to remedytheClubsbreachofthecollective-bargainingagreement.Garveys right to be made whole is founded on that agree-ment.Judicialreviewofalabor-arbitrationdecisionpursuanttosuchanagreementisverylimited.Courtsarenotauthorizedtoreviewthearbitratorsdecisiononthemer-itsdespiteallegationsthatthedecisionrestsonfactualerrorsormisinterpretsthepartiesagreement.Paper-workersv.Misco,Inc.,484U. S.29,36(1987).Were-centlyreiteratedthatifan arbitratorisevenarguablyconstruingorapplyingthecontractandactingwithinthescopeofhisauthority,thefactthatacourtisconvincedhe committed serious error does not suffice to overturn hisdecision. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers,531 U. S. 57, 62 (2000) (quoting Misco, supra, at 38).It isonlywhenthearbitratorstraysfrominterpretationandapplicationoftheagreementandeffectivelydispense[s]hisownbrandofindustrialjusticethathisdecisionmaybe unenforceable.Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & CarCorp.,363U. S.593,597(1960).Whenanarbitratorresolvesdisputesregardingtheapplicationofacontract,and no dishonesty is alleged, the arbitrators improvident,evensilly,factfindingdoesnotprovideabasisforare-viewingcourttorefusetoenforcetheaward.Misco,484U. S., at 39.Indiscussingthecourtslimitedroleinreviewingthemerits of arbitration awards, we have stated that courts. . . have no business weighing the merits of the grievance[or]consideringwhetherthereisequityinaparticularclaim. Id.,at37(quotingSteelworkers v.AmericanMfg.Co., 363 U. S. 564, 568 (1960)).When the judiciary does so,it usurps a function which . . .is entrusted to the arbitra-tion tribunal.Id., at 569; see also Enterprise Wheel & CarCorp.,supra,at599(Itisthearbitratorsconstruction[of6 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSN.v. GARVEYPer Curiamthe agreement] which was bargained for . . . ).Consistentwiththislimitedrole,wesaidin Misco that [e]veninthevery rare instances when an arbitrators procedural aberra-tions rise to the level of affirmative misconduct, as a rule thecourt must not foreclose further proceedings by settling themeritsaccordingtoitsownjudgmentoftheappropriateresult.484U. S.at4041,n. 10.Thatstep,weex-plained,wouldimproperlysubstituteajudicialdetermi-nationforthearbitratorsdecisionthatthepartiesbar-gainedforintheiragreement.Ibid.Instead,thecourtshouldsimplyvacatetheaward,thusleavingopenthepossibilityoffurtherproceedingsiftheyarepermittedunder the terms of the agreement.Ibid.Tobesure,theCourtofAppealshererecitedtheseprinciples,butitsapplicationofthemisnothingshortofbaffling.ThesubstanceoftheCourtsdiscussionrevealsthatitoverturnedthearbitratorsdecisionbecauseitdisagreedwiththearbitratorsfactualfindings,particu-larlythosewithrespecttocredibility.TheCourtofAp-peals, it appears, would have credited Smiths 1996 letter,andfoundthearbitratorsrefusaltodosoatworstirra-tional and at best bizarre. Garvey I, 203 F. 3d, at 590591.But even serious error on the arbitrators part doesnotjustifyoverturninghisdecision,where,ashere,heisconstruingacontractandactingwithinthescopeofhisauthority.Misco, supra, at 38.InGarveyII,thecourtclarifiedthatGarveyIbothre-jected the arbitrators findings and went further, resolvingthemeritsofthepartiesdisputebasedonthecourtsassessmentoftherecordbeforethearbitrator.Forthatreason,thecourtfoundfurtherarbitrationproceedingsinappropriate.Butagain,establishedlawordinarilyprecludes a court from resolving the merits of the partiesdisputeonthebasisofitsownfactualdeterminations,nomatterhowerroneousthearbitratorsdecision.Misco,supra,at40,n. 10;seealsoAmericanMfg.Co.,363U. S.Cite as:532 U. S. ____ (2001) 7Per Curiamat 568.Even when the arbitrators award may properly bevacated, the appropriate remedy is to remand the case forfurther arbitration proceedings.Misco, supra, at 40, n. 10.The dissent suggests that the remedy described in Misco islimitedtocaseswherethearbitratorserrorsareproce-dural.Post,at1(opinionofSTEVENS,J.)Miscodidin-volveproceduralissues,butourdiscussionregardingtheappropriateremedywasnotsolimited.Ifaremandisappropriate even when the arbitrators award has been setaside for procedural aberrations that constitute affirma-tivemisconduct,itfollowsthataremandordinarilywillbeappropriatewhenthearbitratorsimplymadefactualfindings that the reviewing court perceives as irrational.TheCourtofAppealsusurpedthearbitratorsrolebyresolvingthedisputeandbarringfurtherproceedings,aresult at odds with this governing law.2For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals erred inreversingtheorderoftheDistrictCourtdenyingthemotiontovacatethearbitratorsaward,anditerredfur-therindirectingthatjudgmentbeenteredinGarveysfavor.ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisreversed,andthecaseisremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsis-tent with this opinion.It is so ordered.2 Inanyevent,noseriouserroronthearbitratorspartisapparentinthis case.The fact that an earlier panel of arbitrators rejected the ownerstestimony as a whole does not compel the conclusion that the panel foundSmithsspecificstatementswithrespecttoGarveytobefalse.ThearbitratorsexplanationforhisdecisionindicatesthathesimplyfoundSmithanunreliablewitnessandthat,intheabsenceofcorroboratingevidence,hecouldonlyconcludethatGarveyfailedtoshowthatthePadres had offered to extend his contract.The arbitratorsanalysismayhavebeenunpersuasivetotheCourtofAppeals,buthisdecisionhardlyqualifiesasseriouserror,letaloneirrationalorinexplicableerror.And,as we have said, any such error would not justify the actions taken by thecourt.