Players Spanked Mercilessly By Appellate Court Ruling On Lockout.



Just got done reading the full 54 page appellate court decision (and Kermit Bye's dissent) on the appeal of judge Susan Richard Nelson's decision to enjoin a labor dispute and lift a lockout even thought this was expressly forbidden by current federal labor law.  What's more, they gave instructions for her to follow if this case is to continue.


Suffice it to say that the majority found that the players assertion that the lockout was illegal and was not covered by the Norris Laguardia Act was wrong on all counts.  Here's some of the language from the decision.

The text of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the cases interpreting the term "labor

dispute" do not require the present existence of a union to establish a labor dispute.

Whatever the precise limits of the phrase "involving or growing out of a labor

dispute," this case does not press the outer boundary.  The League and the players’

union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement for almost eighteen years prior

to March 2011.  They were engaged in collective bargaining over terms and

conditions of employment for approximately two years through March 11, 2011.  At

that point, the parties were involved in a classic "labor dispute" by the Players’ own

definition.  Then, on a single day, just hours before the CBA’s expiration, the union

discontinued collective bargaining and disclaimed its status, and the Players filed this

action seeking relief concerning industry-wide terms and conditions of employment.

In other words, "Players can't just decide to decertify their union in the 11th hour of an ongoing labor dispute and expect the court system to take a no harm, no foul attitude".  It put the lid on it with the next tidbit.


Whatever the effect of the union’s disclaimer on the League’s immunity from antitrust

liability, the labor dispute did not suddenly disappear just because the Players elected

to pursue the dispute through antitrust litigation rather than collective bargaining.



As Archie Bunker would say, "Ipso-fatso, you can't do that".  Don't you love it when a plan comes together?

As for the players contention that the NLGA did not apply to the employer in a labor dispute, all the majority had to say was, "Wrong again".


With due respect to these courts, we think it better to begin the analysis with the

text of § 4(a).  The introductory clause of § 4 forbids a court to issue an injunction to

prohibit "any person or persons participating or interested" in a labor dispute from

doing any of the acts set forth below, including those in § 4(a).  Employers, of course,

are among the persons participating in a labor dispute.  The introductory clause thus

plainly encompasses employers.  If language in a particular subsection is applicable

on its face to employees and employers alike (or to employers alone), then there is no

need for a specific mention of employers.  An employer against whom injunctive

relief is sought may invoke the protection of a subsection as a "person . . .

participating or interested" in the labor dispute.



Silly Rabbit, employers are people too.  There is alot more in a 54 page decision, but I think the majority summed it up nicely by including the words of the 1915 Report of the Committee on Industrial Relations that was cited by Justice Brandeis in the Duplex Printing labor dispute of 1932, towit:


[T]here are apparently, only two lines of action possible: First to restrict

the rights and powers of employers to correspond in substance to the

powers and rights now allowed to trade unions, and second, to remove

all restriction which now prevent the freedom of action of both parties

to industrial disputes, retaining only the ordinary civil and criminal

restraints for the preservation of life, property and the public peace.  The

first method has been tried and failed absolutely. * * * The only method

therefore seems to be the removal of all restrictions upon both parties,

thus legalizing the strike, the lockout, the boycott, the blacklist, the

bringing in of strike-breakers, and peaceful picketing.



Or, you could just say to the players, "Why are you wasting this courts time with petty legal moves instead of negotiating with the league so that football can be played as normal in 2011?".

It's time for this buffoonery to STOP.  Get a deal done and get it done now.  If we have to tell you again, you may get sent to your room without any dinner.  Get me?  GOOD!



It's STILL all we got.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Arrowhead Pride

You must be a member of Arrowhead Pride to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Arrowhead Pride. You should read them.

Join Arrowhead Pride

You must be a member of Arrowhead Pride to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Arrowhead Pride. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.