Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[Deus Irae]

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.

 

[townes]

I believe I'm not going to engage you in conversation on this, as you've obviously got an agenda to push. I wasn't taking sides (right now, I hate both of them).

No agenda at all, just a simple question. You asked a question regarding the player's right to dissolve their union and i asked a pretty obvious question in return, if you can't answer it that's fine. One of the great ironies of this situation is that it is those who are the most ardently anti-union who are actually arguing that the players must remain in one.

Bottom line: the players don't need to form a union it is the owners who need the players to form a union so they can use the structures they want to run the game the way they want. Those structures compromise the freedoms of the players and that is why the law is on the player's side and the owners need to deal with them fairly to get them to give up those rights.



I would like to see the game remain essentially the same and hope they go back to the table and form a fair deal for all but i'm guessing it will simply continue on in the courts.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

In practice, what does this mean for the short term. Do the players start working out @ The Razor tomorrow?

 

[Don Kipines]

What I dont get - and I'm not taking sides here, I feel both sides are culpable in this mess they're all in - is why the players union de-certifying isn't seen as a sham? They've done it before, and they'll reform as soon as this is all over with?

Probably the main reason is that in the ruling in the Reggie White case years ago, the NFL, in order to win arguments on other issues, conceded the union's right to decertify in future disputes. The league agreed to waive its right to argue that decertification is a "sham or otherwise ineffective" provided that “a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration."

In other words, the league forfeited its right to argue that decertification is a sham the last time the union decertified. Whether or not it actually is a sham is sort of irrelevant here. The NFL lost an antitrust suit last time around and as such is a little like a prisoner on probation for an old crime: its rights are limited and it operates under a pretty arbitrary set of rules imposed upon it by the government. Under those rules, the league can't call decertification a sham. The tactic is specifically allowed under the old ruling. Nelson therefore didn't really have a choice.

 

[cavtroop]

Probably the main reason is that in the ruling in the Reggie White case years ago, the NFL, in order to win arguments on other issues, conceded the union's right to decertify in future disputes. The league agreed to waive its right to argue that decertification is a "sham or otherwise ineffective" provided that “a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration."

In other words, the league forfeited its right to argue that decertification is a sham the last time the union decertified. Whether or not it actually is a sham is sort of irrelevant here. The NFL lost an antitrust suit last time around and as such is a little like a prisoner on probation for an old crime: its rights are limited and it operates under a pretty arbitrary set of rules imposed upon it by the government. Under those rules, the league can't call decertification a sham. The tactic is specifically allowed under the old ruling. Nelson therefore didn't really have a choice.

Ah, thanks for the well thought out response! That's the same answer I came up with (see my post a few above). Unions generally aren't allowed to decertify as a tactic (unless that decertification is in good-faith and the union won't be recertified in the short-term) - but in this case the NFL and NFLPA agreed that that can't be the case. Question answered, I'm going to go back to worrying if there will be/won't be football this year

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

In practice, what does this mean for the short term. Do the players start working out @ The Razor tomorrow?

They will try, remember alot of these guys have off-season workout bonuses built into thier contracts.

 

[townes]

Seriously, though, most cases do eventually get settled before they reach the courtroom. I expect the same will happen here . . . the question is how long it will take.



I agree with you on all counts here.

This doesn't make sense. Either you believe the decertifcation is a "sham," or you believe the player's want no deal and an unfettered free market, it cannot be both.

 

[Don Kipines]

the strategy that the players had all along was to have this played out in the courts. They NEVER had an interest in any kind of negotiated settlement.

The problem as I see it, is now that its in the courts, this is no longer a negotiation, its a court battle run by LAWYERS. And Lawyers by nature are litigators. For litigators its ALL about winning. Its not about what is right or wrong, or justice, or getting an equitable settlement for both sides.

Doesn't matter what the next court rules, there is no one now for the owners to negotiate with. This will be a conflict that some judge will resolve and he won't care about the game, only the "legal issues, and how best to cover his ass on appeal. Both sides will now go nuclear in their strategies because the Lawyers now have control, and THEY will dictate what it will take to win and in those cases its no hold barred

I am now totally depressed. Nothing good will come of this. It Jeffrey Kessler gets his way the game will change. Ironically I would be willing to bet that the Pats will be one of the perennial haves in a league made up of haves and have nots, BUT the great competitive nature of the game as we know it will be gone

And what's REALLY ironic is that the biggest losers in this nuclear winter are the great majority of the players. What stupid, stupid dupes.

I really couldn't care less about who we draft.

I think you misunderstand what's happening here. The Brady suit is almost certainly not going to go through. It was designed as a tactic to scare the owners into abandoning their financial demands and make a new CBA deal. That is exactly what will happen after the owners lose the emergency stay ruling. Within weeks after league business resumes under the old CBA, the owners will come back to the table and offer the players a deal they can accept, and football will go back to business as usual with pretty much the exact same rules as before. This was the players' endgame all along.

The players are not really trying to end the draft and so on. If they really pressed the matter, they could probably win those cases, but they don't want to. All they wanted was to not have to take a pay cut during a period of escalating profits. Now that they have the leverage to get that, they will do so.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Just read a snyonpsis of the Judge's ruling and basically she says the the labor laws do not appy in this case, because their is no union and management, the union is disssovled and basically the owners can do what they want. The only problem for the owners is that they have an anti-trust lawsuit against them, so if they do nothing and don't sign any free agents, they are basically making the case that they are a monopoly, my bet is that they go back to last years rules and maybe stick the players with a few new twists.


The Final paragraph of her ruling....
“The nation’s labor laws have always applied only where an action involves or grows out of a labor dispute. Such a labor relationship exists only where a union exists to bargain on behalf of its members. Where those employees effectively renounce the union as their collective bargaining agent — and accept the consequences of doing so — and elect to proceed in negotiating contracts individually, any disputes between the employees and their employers are no longer governed by federal labor law. Likewise, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which applies only to preclude some injunctions in the context of ‘labor disputes,’ also no longer applies here to preclude injunctive relief. The NFL urges this Court to expand the law beyond these traditional dictates and argues that the protections of labor law should apply for some indefinite period beyond the collapse and termination of the collective bargaining relationship. In the absence of either persuasive policy or authority, this Court takes a more conservative approach, and declines to do so.

“This Court, having found that the Union’s unequivocal disclaimer is valid and effective, concludes there is no need to defer any issue to the NLRB. Because that disclaimer is valid and effective, the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s prohibition against injunctive relief does not preclude granting the Player’s motion for a preliminary
injunction against what the League characterizes as a ‘lockout.’

“Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:

“1. The Brady Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 2] is
GRANTED;

“2. The Eller Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 58] is
MOOT; and

“3. The ‘lockout’ is enjoined.”

@legal note, all court proceedings are "public domain" so no copyright laws apply!


In the immortal words of braodcasting legend "Mean" Gene, we could have pandamonimum breaking out in the ring!!! The players have no union, they at "at will" employees governed by only thier signed employement contracts. The league could make up any rules they want. I say lets break out the XFL rules, no fair catches, mortal combat verus a coin flip to start the game, I'm lovin it!

BTW, as of this moment, Peyton Manning is a free agent!

 

[townes]

The Appeals Court this will go to is decidedly more favorable to ownership but I'm really starting to wonder if the League's case is so weak it can't win in any Court. I think the owners need to realize their money grab failed and that they should sit down and come up with a fair CBA. I hate the idea of an 18 game season but I would go along with the players agreeing to it in return for a steady share of revenues without a ceiling. I can even see the players agreeing to a lesser % of net profits as long as that ceiling isn't imposed. The owners and players are partners in the league because the owners need the players consent to impose the restrictions they do to run the league the way they want, e.g...free agency, tags, a salary cap, and the draft.

I think the owners should realize they have pushed it as far as they should and go to the table because they are completely screwed if the players win in Appeals Court, at that point the owners would have no leverage at all in negotiations and would have to pray for The Supremes to bail them out.

 

[BTTA]

They will try, remember alot of these guys have off-season workout bonuses built into thier contracts.

Brady, Manning, and Brees should all be at the door at 8:00 AM tomorrow morning. That will be an awkward situation for those three owners.

 

[moosekill]

No agenda at all, just a simple question. You asked a question regarding the player's right to dissolve their union and i asked a pretty obvious question in return, if you can't answer it that's fine. One of the great ironies of this situation is that it is those who are the most ardently anti-union who are actually arguing that the players must remain in one.
.

Bull hockey. You have had an agenda throughout this entire escapade, whether or not you are correct, you most certainly have an agenda.

 

[patriot lifer]

Brady, Manning, and Brees should all be at the door at 8:00 AM tomorrow morning. That will be an awkward situation for those three owners.

Brady: "So we're cool right?"

Kraft: [silent and staring daggers]

 

[Deus Irae]

“This Court, having found that the Union’s unequivocal disclaimer is valid and effective, concludes there is no need to defer any issue to the NLRB. Because that disclaimer is valid and effective,

There's the answer to the "sham" question.

 

[Triumph]

I think you misunderstand what's happening here. The Brady suit is almost certainly not going to go through. It was designed as a tactic to scare the owners into abandoning their financial demands and make a new CBA deal. That is exactly what will happen after the owners lose the emergency stay ruling. Within weeks after league business resumes under the old CBA, the owners will come back to the table and offer the players a deal they can accept, and football will go back to business as usual with pretty much the exact same rules as before. This was the players' endgame all along.

The players are not really trying to end the draft and so on. If they really pressed the matter, they could probably win those cases, but they don't want to. All they wanted was to not have to take a pay cut during a period of escalating profits. Now that they have the leverage to get that, they will do so.

The owners could also wait until the Appeals court rules on Nelsons decision.

I really have a hard believing the owners will just cow down to the players and let them call the shots.

 

[townes]

Bull hockey. You have had an agenda throughout this entire escapade, whether or not you are correct, you most certainly have an agenda.

Siding with the players and "having an agenda" are different things. I don't start threads on it and I don't go around pushing my views on it i simply respond to the posts in threads about it. Once again in this instance i was responding to a post that questioned the player's right to dissolve their union and that's not pushing an agenda that's responding to a question or assertion.


The players are right, the owners are in trouble because their case is beyond weak.

 

[townes]

The owners could also wait until the Appeals court rules on Nelsons decision.

I really have a hard believing the owners will just cow down to the players and let them call the shots.

The owners can wait on the Appeal but they are in big trouble if they lose it and would be smarter making a fair deal with the players. The owners were counting on the stay and didn't get it, now they are in real peril if they don't make a deal and lose again.


I really believe the players want a fair deal and would agree to one and it doesn't make sense for the owners to keep pushing it with all that is at stake.

 

[Deus Irae]

Unless the owners pull off a dark of night stay, players will be showing up at team facilities first thing tomorrow morning. Teams refusing to allow them in could, theoretically, be found to be in contempt of court.

It could get very interesting, very quickly.

 

[lamafist]

Ah, thanks for the well thought out response! That's the same answer I came up with (see my post a few above). Unions generally aren't allowed to decertify as a tactic (unless that decertification is in good-faith and the union won't be recertified in the short-term) - but in this case the NFL and NFLPA agreed that that can't be the case. Question answered, I'm going to go back to worrying if there will be/won't be football this year

I can't find record of a single instance of a union not being allowed to decertify.

Unions cannot use decertification and reformation under a different name or leadership to get out of bargaining agreement already entered into, but this is not disallowing the decertification, but rather, applying existing agreements to whatever labor union speaks for a specific workforce.

Judge Nelson, in her decision, does not cite Reggie White vs. the NFL or the CBA that resulted from its settlement in discussion of the union's decertification, but rather states in no uncertain terms that the NFL simply has no standing to challenge their employees' rights to not be represented by a union.

Per the AP report:

"There is no legal support for any requirement that a disclaimer be permanent," Nelson wrote. "Employees have the right not only to organize as a union but also to refrain from such representation and, as relevant here, to 'de-unionize.'"

Nelson also stated that the so-called decertification was legitimate because of "serious consequences" for the players.

"This court need not resolve the debate about whether their motive was influenced by the expectation of this litigation," she wrote, calling that question irrelevant as long as the union followed through on the breakup.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

The bolded part is where the NFL believes it is not bound, since the decertification happened prior to that trigger.