CBA litigation

[spartacus]

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3782671.0.pdf

 

The owners brief is an interesting read as it paints a much more optimistic picture for them than what has been portrayed in the media so far.

 

The key point from the brief

 

"The threshold question here is one of jurisdiction, and the District Court lacked it. Congress long ago determined that, to achieve and secure labor peace, federal courts may not interfere—on either side—in cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute. The Norris-LaGuardia Act imposed this jurisdictional bar in broad terms, utilizing a capacious definition of a “labor dispute” and expressly covering cases “involving or growing out of” such disputes. The text of the Act therefore resolves this appeal. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have con-sistently applied the Act according to its terms, with the result that only one district court had ever before enjoined a lockout—a ruling that was quickly reversed."

 

My guess is that the issue of a sham de-certification gets kicked to the National Labor Relations Board and the owners are allowed to continue the lockout until it is resolved sometime in 2012.

 

However, Doty will mandate that a portion of the TV money due the players will be paid to them in 2011, allowing the players to extend the work stoppage for a while. Of course, if they get money, so will the owners - so the advantage will stay with the owners.

 

Players would be wise to get this settled before the 8th Circuit takes away its leverage.

 

 

[Spiderweb]

http://www.ca8.uscou...8.3782671.0.pdf

 

The owners brief is an interesting read as it paints a much more optimistic picture for them than what has been portrayed in the media so far.

 

The key point from the brief

 

"The threshold question here is one of jurisdiction, and the District Court lacked it. Congress long ago determined that, to achieve and secure labor peace, federal courts may not interfere—on either side—in cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute. The Norris-LaGuardia Act imposed this jurisdictional bar in broad terms, utilizing a capacious definition of a "labor dispute" and expressly covering cases "involving or growing out of" such disputes. The text of the Act therefore resolves this appeal. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have con-sistently applied the Act according to its terms, with the result that only one district court had ever before enjoined a lockout—a ruling that was quickly reversed."

 

My guess is that the issue of a sham de-certification gets kicked to the National Labor Relations Board and the owners are allowed to continue the lockout until it is resolved sometime in 2012.

 

However, Doty will mandate that a portion of the TV money due the players will be paid to them in 2011, allowing the players to extend the work stoppage for a while. Of course, if they get money, so will the owners - so the advantage will stay with the owners.

 

Players would be wise to get this settled before the 8th Circuit takes away its leverage.

 

 

 

Regarding the never ending one-sided view of some, the owners planned for a lockout at least a couple years in advance and that's a positive thing for contract negotiations? The NFLPA had little choice but to play one of the few cards they have.

 

Allowing the lockout to stand could kill football for this year as all that will remain is litigation, and I'm not so sure the NFL really wants to fully test anti-trust laws. I for one believe lifting the lockout would do more to get both parties back to the bargaining table by far.

[BEAST MODE BABY!]

All the fans want is for people to play some damn football, and the fans support this whole shebang. Without the fans, neither the players or the owners have much worthwhile.

[bobinaz]

Yep, they need to get things resolved fast because at the rate things are going, most of the players are going to be in jail for one reason or another. The players need to be on the field practicing, not getting busted for DUI, possession, mistaken identity (see Hines Ward), etc.

 

A question for the audience here, but what in the hell is Goodell's job anyway? He's the commissioner!!! Shouldn't he be more than a bystander during all this? All I can say is crap rolls down hill and Karma is hell. Let's see: No football equals no NFL ticket subscriptions, no ticket sales, no jersey sales, no concession stand sales, just as a start. Money that ordinary people that work the concession stands, pro shops counted on for extra income goes away.

 

I'm really perplexed that these two sides can't reach an agreement!!! When the economy is the way it is, prices going up, employees having to take furlough days, it's just sickening the way both sides are acting. Well come this fall when the players who only get league minimum salary are behind in their mortgages, car payments, and credit card for jewelry stores, they can thank the Jerry Jones, Bob Krafts, Tom Bradys, and Drew Brees. Just like when the baseball strike happened, how many fans walked out on the sport? It'll be interesting to see how many fans support the NFL after this.

[JCBoston]

A question for the audience here, but what in the hell is Goodell's job anyway? He's the commissioner!!!

 

He works for the owners.

 

I have no sympathy for either side. If they can't decide how to split up 9 BILLION DOLLARS then f*ck 'em. I'll do something else on Sundays in the fall.

[Peter]

My primary concern in this whole thing that the ultimate resolution is beneficial for the Bills staying in Buffalo.

 

As I mentioned in another thread, the NFLPA* lost its home field advantage once this went up to the 8th Circuit. The three judge panel hearing the appeal consists of two Bush appointees and one Clinton appointee. Guess who wrote the dissenting opinion when the panel granted the temporary stay.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Peter

[Beerball]

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3782671.0.pdf

 

The owners brief is an interesting read as it paints a much more optimistic picture for them than what has been portrayed in the media so far.

I'm not a lawyer, but, wouldn't you expect the owner's brief to paint an optimistic picture of their position?

[Spiderweb]

I'm not a lawyer, but, wouldn't you expect the owner's brief to paint an optimistic picture of their position?

 

............... Finally, a touch of logic.

[spartacus]

I'm not a lawyer, but, wouldn't you expect the owner's brief to paint an optimistic picture of their position?

 

the more relevant deduction is that since the 8th Circuit has not lifted the stay, the 8th Circuit is leaning to uphold the positions in the owner's brief.

[Beerball]

the more relevant deduction is that since the 8th Circuit has not lifted the stay, the 8th Circuit is leaning to uphold the positions in the owner's brief.

They said the same thing when the original case ended up not on Doty's docket.

[Astrobot]

All the fans want is for people to play some damn football, and the fans support this whole shebang. Without the fans, neither the players or the owners have much worthwhile.

This.

 

This whole thread doesn't even belong on a fan website. I am sick of Litigious America. May all lawyer jokes come true!

[Mickey]

http://www.ca8.uscou...8.3782671.0.pdf

 

The owners brief is an interesting read as it paints a much more optimistic picture for them than what has been portrayed in the media so far.

 

The key point from the brief

 

"The threshold question here is one of jurisdiction, and the District Court lacked it. Congress long ago determined that, to achieve and secure labor peace, federal courts may not interfereon either sidein cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute. The Norris-LaGuardia Act imposed this jurisdictional bar in broad terms, utilizing a capacious definition of a "labor dispute" and expressly covering cases "involving or growing out of" such disputes. The text of the Act therefore resolves this appeal. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have con-sistently applied the Act according to its terms, with the result that only one district court had ever before enjoined a lockouta ruling that was quickly reversed."

 

My guess is that the issue of a sham de-certification gets kicked to the National Labor Relations Board and the owners are allowed to continue the lockout until it is resolved sometime in 2012.

 

However, Doty will mandate that a portion of the TV money due the players will be paid to them in 2011, allowing the players to extend the work stoppage for a while. Of course, if they get money, so will the owners - so the advantage will stay with the owners.

 

Players would be wise to get this settled before the 8th Circuit takes away its leverage.

 

 

 

You might want to take a look at the player's response which points out that Norris LaGuardia doesn't apply to cases where there is no union as is the case here. A quick look at the caption demonstrates that there is no union mentioned as a party. But, even if you buy there argument there is a union even when there isn't, Norris Laguardia only strips the court of jurisdiction to issue injunctions being made against striking workers. The provision of Norris LaGuardia at issue...

 

"...prohibits injunctions against "[c]easing or refusing to perform any work or to remain in any relation of employment."

The phrase "[c]easing or refusing to perform any work" in Section 104 has no application to an employer's refusal to permit someone else to work. The provision is directed to workers, not employers."

If the injunction holds, we have football. If it doesn't, we don't have football. I don't care who wins this negotiating standoff, my only interest is that football continues with OTS's and FA signings and all the rest right through training camp and the start of the season. Currently, that happens if the players with and the injunction holds. So that is the side I am on and I don't really get why a football fan would be against that and for the lockout. Reasonable minds may differ on who should get how much $$ in the next agreement but why are their fans rooting against football???

Edited May 8, 2011 by Mickey

[Glory Bound]

This will be resolved in July or August...probably August, & by late evening on Sept 8th everybody will have forgotten all about it.

[Hplarrm]

the more relevant deduction is that since the 8th Circuit has not lifted the stay, the 8th Circuit is leaning to uphold the positions in the owner's brief.

It looks to me though that the 8th circuit problem is that while it generally supportive of business and free enterprise as one would expect from a Bush appointed judge, a decision which comes down on the side of the NFL owners is actually one which is anti-free market.

 

This contradiction is a difficult circle to square and its going to be very hard to accomplish this in a court ruling.

 

The NFLPA threat to decertify was so devastating to the NFL team owners because it really would have taken away the figleaf of union agreement from a restraint of individual trade and an undercutting of the free market which is basically what the NFL draft is.

 

If the NFLPA decertifies itself and thus abandons any claim to negotiate for the players as a group, it then forces the owners to negotiate with individual players though a series of individual personal services contracts. It will be the Golden Rule meaning he has the most gold rules as any owner could buy any player for whatever timelength and terms could be negotiated.

 

The great irony in all of this is that it is pretty obvious that such a system would fail as there would be no competitive balance in the league. A system based on a social compact (read socialism) is actually far more likely to produce a stable product and thus gain huge bucks from the TV networks than a free market system.

 

Any 8th Circuit decision which finds for the owners but also demands that the NFL continue operating with a social compact which forces an individual player to negotiate with one and only one team (and even worse bars adults from even having a contract until their age group reaches 21 is on its face anti-free market and anti-capitalist.

 

My guess is the NFLPA sticks to its guns and forces the owners to choose between a socialist system where the NFLPA gets a majority of the total take or instead have an actual free market.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

You might want to take a look at the player's response which points out that Norris LaGuardia doesn't apply to cases where there is no union as is the case here. A quick look at the caption demonstrates that there is no union mentioned as a party. But, even if you buy there argument there is a union even when there isn't, Norris Laguardia only strips the court of jurisdiction to issue injunctions being made against striking workers. The provision of Norris LaGuardia at issue...

 

"...prohibits injunctions against "[c]easing or refusing to perform any work or to remain in any relation of employment."

The phrase "[c]easing or refusing to perform any work" in Section 104 has no application to an employer's refusal to permit someone else to work. The provision is directed to workers, not employers."

If the injunction holds, we have football. If it doesn't, we don't have football. I don't care who wins this negotiating standoff, my only interest is that football continues with OTS's and FA signings and all the rest right through training camp and the start of the season. Currently, that happens if the players with and the injunction holds. So that is the side I am on and I don't really get why a football fan would be against that and for the lockout. Reasonable minds may differ on who should get how much $$ in the next agreement but why are their fans rooting against football???

First, I hope the 2011 season is played in full. But I have a few questions about the issues here.

 

As I read the owners' brief in the OP's link, the owners are basing their jurisdictional argument on the statutory language "ceasing or refusing ... to remain in any relation of employment." How do you counter the owners' argument that (1) 29 U.S.C. S 178 exempts certain presidential requests for injunctions against both strikes AND lockouts from the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and (2) there would be no reason to include "lockouts" in the text of the 29 U.S.C. S 178 exemption if the Norris-LaGuardia Act's anti-injunction provision applied only to strikes and did not apply to lock-outs? I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand the logic of the owners' argument here.

 

There may very well be reasons why the owners' jurisdictional argument fails, but your post doesn't seem to address the stronger parts of the owners' jurisdictional argument. Did the owners' brief misrepresent the text of 29 U.S.C. S 178? Is there some reason why that statute should not be interpreted as showing that Congress apparently believed that the existing anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act applied to both strikes AND lockouts? If the plain text of the anti-injunction provision is even a little bit ambiguous, doesn't that evidence of Congressional intent matter?

 

Again, I'm not saying the owners will win the jurisdictional argument. I'm just curious how you would refute the parts of the owners' jurisdictional argument that I find stronger than what you've already addressed.

Edited May 8, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[San-O]

Regarding the never ending one-sided view of some, the owners planned for a lockout at least a couple years in advance and that's a positive thing for contract negotiations? The NFLPA had little choice but to play one of the few cards they have.

 

Allowing the lockout to stand could kill football for this year as all that will remain is litigation, and I'm not so sure the NFL really wants to fully test anti-trust laws. I for one believe lifting the lockout would do more to get both parties back to the bargaining table by far.

 

 

Why wouldn't they challenge something they are almost certain to have ruled in their favor?

[K Gun Special]

First, I hope the 2011 season is played in full. But I have a few questions about the issues here.

 

As I read the owners' brief in the OP's link, the owners are basing their jurisdictional argument on the statutory language "ceasing or refusing ... to remain in any relation of employment." How do you counter the owners' argument that (1) 29 U.S.C. S 178 exempts certain presidential requests for injunctions against both strikes AND lockouts from the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and (2) there would be no reason to include "lockouts" in the text of the 29 U.S.C. S 178 exemption if the Norris-LaGuardia Act's anti-injunction provision applied only to strikes and did not apply to lock-outs? I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand the logic of the owners' argument here.

 

There may very well be reasons why the owners' jurisdictional argument fails, but your post doesn't seem to address the stronger parts of the owners' jurisdictional argument. Did the owners' brief misrepresent the text of 29 U.S.C. S 178? Is there some reason why that statute should not be interpreted as showing that Congress apparently believed that the existing anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act applied to both strikes AND lockouts? If the plain text of the anti-injunction provision is even a little bit ambiguous, doesn't that evidence of Congressional intent matter?

 

Again, I'm not saying the owners will win the jurisdictional argument. I'm just curious how you would refute the parts of the owners' jurisdictional argument that I find stronger than what you've already addressed.

 

 

he did counter the argument. If there was congressional intent certainly that would be the main point of the brief. Its not.

 

The law applies to people refusing to work, meaning the workers. Here, the employers arent letting the workers work. Thats you you counter that argument. Its tough to argue a law means something that isnt in the statute. Especially, where there is no congressional intent to include anouther meaning.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

he did counter the argument. If there was congressional intent certainly that would be the main point of the brief. Its not.

 

The law applies to people refusing to work, meaning the workers. Here, the employers arent letting the workers work. Thats you you counter that argument. Its tough to argue a law means something that isnt in the statute. Especially, where there is no congressional intent to include anouther meaning.

I'm open to well-reasoned arguments on both sides of this issue. If I recall correctly, Mickey has stated in a different post that he is a lawyer with quite a bot of litigation experience, so I would still appreciate getting his response (if he has the time) to my post. Doesn't necessarily mean I will agree with him, but I'd like to get more info from him if he is gracious enough to give me some of his time and share his thoughts.

 

As for your own response:

 

1. I actually agree with you that here the employers aren't letting the workers work;

 

2. If you think Mickey specifically countered the owners' argument about the effect of 29 U.S.C. S 178 without even mentioning that statute you're entitled to your opinion. It's certainly possible that the 8th Circuit will conclude that the Norris-LaGuardia Act's injunction bar applies only to strikes and not to lockouts - - I think that's what the players' lawyers are contending. I just don't find the issue as clear cut as you seem to. The only 8th Circuit opinion we have so far in the case was not unanimous (and went against the players to boot), so maybe there's room for more than one point of view here.

 

3. I don't know what you consider the "main point of the brief." The second sentence of the brief reads - - "Congress long ago determined that, to achieve and secure labor peace, federal courts may not interfere - on either side - in cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute." Now, I'm not saying that the second sentence of a brief necessarily conveys the "main point," but they sure started talking about what "Congress determined" (i.e., Congressional intent) pretty quickly.

[Fixxxer]

Regarding the never ending one-sided view of some, the owners planned for a lockout at least a couple years in advance and that's a positive thing for contract negotiations? The NFLPA had little choice but to play one of the few cards they have.

 

Allowing the lockout to stand could kill football for this year as all that will remain is litigation, and I'm not so sure the NFL really wants to fully test anti-trust laws. I for one believe lifting the lockout would do more to get both parties back to the bargaining table by far.

 

Think again:

 

Rumors fly of a complete NFL shutdown

Posted by Mike Florio on May 8, 2011, 3:52 PM EDT

 

So if the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Judge Susan Nelson’s ruling that the lockout should be lifted while the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit proceeds, the league will simply open the doors and allow business to continue as usual until the Brady case is settled, right?

 

Maybe not.

 

We’re hearing initial rumblings pointing to the possibility that a loss by the league at the appellate level will prompt the owners to completely shut down all business operations until the players agree to a new labor deal. The thinking is that, if the owners cease all operations, the NFL would not be violating the court order because there would be no lockout. Instead, the league essentially would be going out of business — something for which the NFL repeatedly chided the union in the weeks and months preceding decertification of the NFLPA.

 

more

Edited May 9, 2011 by Fixxxer

[Guest three3]

The great irony in all of this is that it is pretty obvious that such a system would fail

 

no, it would not fail. the result would basically resemble baseball, a sport that i watch every single day. baseball has survived labor struggles and rampant cheating. the fans keep coming back. baseball will NEVER go away. there might be less teams in the end due to the competitive imbalance but that is not "failure". would a team like the bills be screwed if an owner like ralph held onto the team? of course. but imagine if pegula bought the team. bills fans would be BEGGING for this sort of radical change, we'd be the yankees/red sox of football