- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
You're reading into my statement too much. Regardless, I found the answer:
Won’t the NFL claim that that the NFLPA dissolving is a “sham” because they did it prior?
As noted, in Freeman McNeil v NFL, the NFLPA has dissolved before in 1989 only to resurface as a union in 1993. The NFL will claim that in dissolving for a second time, it’s a “sham” – a legal move to avoid bargaining in good faith as a union.
But, there’s some wiggle room for the NFLPA that was brokered as part of the current CBA.
(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.
So, the NFL and the (ex)NFLPA had an agreement in place that a de-certification could not be considered a sham. That explains it, and answers my question. I'll let you guys get back to taking sides now.
I wasn't taking a side. You were assuming the answer in your question. In other words, you were taking a side while claiming that you weren't.