But Vilma did not sue for an unfair labor practice (at least here in what we are talking about); he sued Roger Goodell for defamation, and his claims were thrown out because they are pre-empted by the collective bargaining agreement and he could not get around that by suing ole Roger in his individual capacity. Pre-empted means that the CBA has a procedure to cover Vilma's claims (that has been negotiated by union reps theorhetically representing Vilma) such that he could not proceed to state court (or federal court, or wherever he went), not necessarily that he couldn't bring them at all (although that may be the case if the right to sue for defamation in relation to an NFL investigation was bargained away).
Well the point was whether Brady is prevented from suing.
Can you show me where the court rejected a Vilma suit by saying the gave away the right in the CBA? Not by twisting the words of a statement that gives a different reason, but an actual statement that says he cannot proceed because the CBA gave away that right and the court is fine with that?
I understand you disagree, but Vilma's claims went no further, true?
Hardly proof that a court upheld the CBA saying players are not allowed to sue the league.
Unions bargain away things all the time for their constituents, usually for higher wages and better benefits. For example, "If you (NFL) pay each player at least X per year (vet minimum, for example), we (NFL Players) agree not to sue you in state or federal court and instead proceed to private arbitration with XYZ Company for any disputes that arise under an official NFL investigation." or words to this effect.
Well that's not what it says, and of course unions bargain for many things, but an agreement that takes legal recourse won't hold up. In that eventuality employers can lock out workers, and force them to sign a CBA that gives away all of the rights that workers have. It would be overruled.
Even though you are not in a Credit Card Holders of America union, you have probably entered into such an agreement with your VISA credit card company. In the fine print of that applicaton they send you before you agree to an extension of credit by them, you agree that if a dispute arises with them, to be bound by binding arbitration in New York, or some far flung place by XYZ Company (who won't be able to hear your dispute for about 3 years).
Again, lender and borrower is a far different relationship than employer and employee, and the billions of dollars mortgage lenders have lost to borrowers in court would belie this as well.
Welcome to the world of litigation. Brady is represented by the best, and if there is a loophole, they will find it (the retaliation claim for being the lead plaintiff in the last labor talks is an intriguing one I am sure they have thought of), but you are mistaken if you think that collective bargaining agreements do not give up things as much as they improve things for their constituents.
You totally misrepresent my position here.
Obviously CBA have good and bad for both sides. What I am saying is a union strong armed into forfeiting their legal right to relief from the legal system for violations by their employer would not be enforced.
Lets forget its Tom Brady and say that its Suzy the unionized maid. Suzy's union agrees to a clause in their collective bargaining agreement that employees cannot sue her employers for suspending her without pay because something came up missing at work, they have no evidence against her but think she looks guilty.
Are you honestly telling me a court would reject that?
