I don't entirely understand what you mean here, so just let me say this: If a contract has a clause which directly contradicts the CBA, then if such a clause were appealed, the CBA would be enforced and the clause in the contract would be ignored.
Yes, I know that the CBA is a "higher power" than an individual contract. If any team could overrule the CBA, then what's the point of having a CBA in the first place?
Well my "point" is that while I think AB has the stronger case, I admit I am not sure what will happen, so I am not entirely sure how I am supposed to prove that. However, Michael McCann has a very persuasive article on the situation, so here is a link:
https://sports.yahoo.com/antonio-brown-likely-labor-grievance-011301923.html
Really? When have they ever cut a player who was owed money in the form of a deferred signing bonus and then not paid it? Aaron Hernandez' situation does not apply here because it is important to note we are talking about a deferred signing bonus, not a salary guarantee (or guaranteed bonus). There's a difference between those and signing bonuses (not to mention Hernandez went to jail so it's not like he was fulfilling his obligations).