Image via Wikipedia
When it comes to what is transpiring in the labor battle between the NFL and NFLPA, it is heady stuff for fans (and yes, the media) to comprehend. The technical maneuvering surrounds labor law – the ground rules that business and unions engage in – and it’s not for the weak to comprehend.
Whilst the NFL and NFLPA have agreed to extend talks for a second time (the CBA is now set to expire on Friday, March 11 at midnight), there are still chances that a deal may well not be reached. If so, a series of legal moves will take place.
With so a lot of questions and data being published in articles and in social network platforms such as Twitter, it’s no wonder that, given the complexities, the exact sequence of events has been portrayed incorrectly on occasion.
![]() Bill Gould is the former chair of the NLRB |
In an attempt to get to the bottom of some of these topics, we approached Bill Gould. Gould is the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and is currently Charles A. Beasley Professor of Law, Emeritus at Stanford University. He has been a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators since 1970 and has arbitrated and mediated more than 200 labor disputes, such as the 1992 and 1993 salary disputes between the Key League Baseball Players Association and the Key League Baseball Player Relations Committee. He currently serves as independent monitor for FirstGroup America, addressing freedom of association complaints. В As Gould notes, in terms of labor law, there are numerous moving parts surrounding the NFL at the moment.
“The current situation between the NFL and NFLPA is quite exciting,” said Gould. “It’s a veritable smorgasbord for labor law.” Here’s his clarifications around the labor issues confronting the NFL and NFLPA.
If the NFLPA dissolves, are they disclaiming over decertification due to “blocking charges”?
The differences between “disclaiming interest” and “decertification” are this: In disclaiming interest, the union would walk away from the players and dissolve. In decertification, employees (in this case, the players) want a union to no longer represent them. The NFL has filed charges that the NFLPA has conducted unfair labor practices (see the complete text), and due to that, reports have said, the NFLPA ought to disclaim interest over decertification as the claim filed by the NFL is a “blocking charge”. Not so, says Gould.
“The blocking charge aspect that has been widely misportrayed in the mainstream and on the internet media,” said Gould. “The reason that the NFLPA would disclaim or decertification is due to the delays involved in the NLRB method. It could take months for a decertification to be processed while the NFLPA can disclaim as soon as a letter is given Judge Doty. The blocking charge only has relevance to an NLRB petition, which they won’t do.”
Why would they not do so? According to Gould, the NFLPA disclaimed interest prior in 1989 when the NFL had no unfair labor practice claim filed, a sign that if the option to decertify or disclaim were just about the blocking charge, the NFLPA could have gone the decert route over disclaiming interest at that time (See Freeman McNeil v NFL where NFL totally free agency was eventually reached).
What’s the latest the NFLPA could dissolve?
On Thursday, this was a subject that had two answers floating about. Some reported that it had to be close of enterprise – the filing had to be to Judge David Doty by then. That is incorrect, according to Gould. “For the purposes the NFLPA is seeking, they could notify in letter to Doty correct up to just just before the present CBA had been to expire,” Gould said. Based upon that, if the sides were not close at the end of the current 7-day extension (Friday at midnight), the NFLPA could wait as late as 11:59pm to dissolve.
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 very good faith as a union.
But, there’s some wiggle room for the NFLPA that was brokered as component of the existing 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 right 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 might 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, needs additional steps, or has not in reality occurred.
If the NFLPA had been to dissolve, when could the players file antitrust claims?
To block any lockout, the mechanism of disclaiming interest by the NFLPA would dissolve them into a trade association, and the players would then become individual employees. As 32 entities working in concert as a league, the players are ready to file antitrust charges saying the league is ostensibly setting up a “boycott” of the players (see If CBA Not Extended, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady Turn out to be Plaintiffs For Antitrust Claims).
The big question is, when could the players do so? According to Gould, it could happen as soon as the NFLPA were to dissolve. That means, it does not, necessarily require to occur when the CBA expires.
Why not file antitrust claims after the CBA expires?
Due to the fact, the NFLPA negotiated with the NFL that they have to wait six-months after the current CBA expires to do so. From the CBA:
(a) Following the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, then, if the NFLPA is in existence as a union, the Parties agree that none of the Class Members (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) nor any player represented by the NFLPA shall be able to commence an action, or assert a claim, under the antitrust laws for conduct occurring, until either: (i) the Management Council and NFLPA have bargained to impasse or (ii) six (6) months soon after such expiration, whichever is later at that time, the Parties reserve any arguments they may possibly make concerning the application of the labor exemption.
Are there any NLRB rules saying how long a union must remained dissolved just before it can reestablish itself?
There’s been some talk that the NFLPA has to wait some specified period of time just before they could reestablish themselves after any action to dissolve into a trade association. According to Gould, there are no such guidelines. “Nothing says that the union can’t reestablish as soon as they like,” said Gould. “But, it could play into any “sham” litigation outside of what the CBA addresses.
Can the NFLPA use the “lockout insurance” ruling to gain concessions with the owners?
On March 1, U.S. District Judge David Doty ruled in favor of the NFLPA, concerning claims that the league negotiated tv contract extensions that were created as “lockout insurance” as opposed to growing total revenues – revenues that decide the salary cap for the league (read the entire filing by the NFLPA). Those extensions had been developed to pay owners over $ 4 billion in rights fees, even if games had been not played. The league had claimed that those provisions were inside the agreements just before the extensions were released. Doty is scheduled to hold a hearing to establish no matter whether there will be an injunction to block those fees becoming paid to the owners, monetary damages to the players, or both.
When asked if the NFLPA may well use a settlement of that ruling to leverage owners into some concessions that the owners are seeking, Gould said that could be an alternative.
Despite the fact that he said that he had not heard 1 way or one more regardless of whether that scenario was being played out, Gould said, “There’s nothing stopping the players from doing so.”
Could Judge Doty still play a part in negotiations following the current CBA expires?
Judge David Doty’s ruling – and prior rulings for the players – have had an incredible impact on where the negotiations are at now, and what the final outcome of a new CBA will be. The owners would really like absolutely nothing more than to have him be out of the picture even though the players would like to keep him in play as lengthy as possible.
Technically, Doty’s oversight ends when the present CBA does. But, it’s still a shot that Doty could be involved following.
If the CBA had been to expire, the NFLPA dissolves and the players file antitrust claims blocking a lockout, the courts would determine how to administer labor matters until a new CBA is reached. While there is nothing saying Doty would be the judge selected, Gould said that it behooves the method to have a judge that is familiar with the current state of affairs in the labor battle. That could mean Doty could stay in play.
Can the NFL and NFLPA continue to extend the deadline for the expiration of the existing CBA?
Yes. According to Gould, this could be accomplished in perpetuity – done as lengthy as they wish. As a practicality, as training camps approach, it seems unlikely matters could go that far, but there’s absolutely nothing to say that we might not have yet yet another extension when the existing 7-day extension expires.
Does any extension have to be approved by federal mediator George Cohn?
No. Cohen is simply facilitating dialog between the sides. The players and NFL can negotiate the ground rules for extending talks without having input from any mediator.
LOOK FOR FURTHER REPORTS LEADING UP TO A NEW CBA Being REACHED IN THE NFL
RELATED NFL LABOR CONTENT:
- NFL, NFLPA Agree To 7-Day Extension to Try and Reach New CBA (The Biz of Football)
- How a Judge’s Tv Ruling May well Save the NFL, NFLPA from Armageddon (The Biz of Football)
- NFL, NFLPA Agree to Extend Labor Talks 24 Hours Past Deadline (The Biz of Football)
- If CBA Not Extended, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady Turn out to be Plaintiffs For Anti-Trust Claims (The Biz of Football)
- NFL Owners Provide to Extend Negotiating Deadline for New Deal with Players (The Biz of Football)
- With NFL CBA Expiring at Midnight, Here’s Each and every Alternative That Could Take place (The Biz of Football)
- Looming NFL CBA Deadline May well Force Tactical Decisions in Labor Negotiations (The Biz of Football)
- NFL Owners Meeting Yields No Actions or Decision on Probable Lockout (The Biz of Football)
- Judge’s Ruling on NFL Television Income No Guarantee New CBA Reached by Deadline (The Biz of Football)
- Federal Judge Backs NFL Players Over Owners On Television Income (Forbes)
- Source: Chances of New NFL CBA By March 4 “Nearly Impossible” (The Biz of Football)
- With Week to go till NFL CBA Expires, Federal Mediator says “Very Powerful Differences” Stay (The Biz of Football)
- Big Difference Between NFL and NBA Labor Disputes Boils Down to the Supreme Court (The Biz of Football)
- A Cold War Mounts, Here’s Why a Lockout in the NFL Near Particular (The Biz of Football)
- Complete Text of NFL Charges Against NFLPA for Unfair Labor Practices (The Biz of Football)
- NFL Files Charges Against NFLPA Accusing Unfair Labor Practices (The Biz of Football)
- Is Jerry Richardson the Darth Vader of NFL Labor Battle? (The Biz of Football)
- NFL Rejects NFLPA Proposal, Reportedly Looking for Salary Cuts Beyond Rookie Signings (The Biz of Football)
- Numbers Show NFL’s вЂEconomic Realities’ for Lockout Unwarranted (Forbes)
- Rain on NFL Parade? (Selection)
FOLLOW MAURY BROWN ON TWITTER @BizballMaury

SportsMoney
Nowadays in Pictures
Chicago girls at Sokol Sports, Prague, Austria (LOC)

Image by The Library of Congress
Bain News Service,, publisher.
Chicago girls at Sokol Sports, Prague, Austria
[1912]
1 negative : glass five x 7 in. or smaller.
Notes:
Title from information provided by the Bain News Service on the caption card.
Photo shows young females demonstrating tennis method, almost certainly during the 6th Sokol Slet (gymnastic festival) held in 1912 in Prague (then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, now located in the Czech Republic). (Source: Flickr Commons project, 2008)
Forms component of: George Grantham Bain Collection (Library of Congress).
Format: Glass negatives.
Rights Info: No known restrictions on publication.
Repository: Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA, hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print
General information about the Bain Collection is obtainable at hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.ggbain
Persistent URL: hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ggbain.11568
Call Number: LC-B2- 2521-13

















