The N.F.L. responded in court documents Monday to players’ attempt to gain an injunction to lift the lockout, claiming that courts are barred from issuing injunctions in labor disputes and that no decision on the injunction should be made before the National Labor Relations Board rules on the N.F.L.’s charge that the union’s decertification is a sham. One league official Monday called the decertification “a fake suicide.” þþA hearing is set for April 6 in United States District Court in Minneapolis on the request for the injunction which, if granted, would force the league to reopen for business, although it would probably seek a stay while appealing to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. þþ“The plaintiffs have to go 3-0; we only have to win on one to prevail,” said another N.F.L. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the pending litigation. “What they have to do is run the table, and I think that’s relatively difficult, as we lay out in our brief.” þþThe brief begins by taking aim at the union’s decertification, which owners contend is a negotiating tactic employed to allow players access to antitrust law. þþ“The law is not so easily manipulated,” the brief reads. “One party to a collective bargaining relationship cannot, through its own tactical and unilateral conduct, instantaneously oust federal labor law or extinguish another party’s labor-law rights.” þþThen it lays out the three reasons the league believes an injunction should not be granted. The first relies on the Norris-La Guardia Act, which in 1932 prohibited the court from issuing an injunction from a lockout, as long as the case “ ‘involves or grows out of’ a labor dispute, a test that is clearly satisfied here,” the brief says. þþIt goes on to say that the N.L.R.B. has primary jurisdiction in determining the fate of the union’s decertification. The N.L.R.B. is still investigating the N.F.L.’s unfair-labor-practices charge and it could be several more weeks, or even months, before the board’s general counsel decides whether it finds enough evidence to issue a complaint, which would then lead to a hearing before an administrative law judge. The brief argues that if the N.L.R.B. finds a violation, it will order the union back to the bargaining table, so the court should stay the antitrust case until the N.L.R.B. has made its decision. þþThe brief cites statements made by players, including members of the union’s executive committee, to try to bolster the owners’ argument that the decertification was a tactical decision, not a dissolution of the union. þþ“The idea of decertification, the tactic and the strategy worked back in 1989,” the brief cites the union president Kevin Mawae saying in 2010. The brief goes on to quote Mawae calling the step “that ace in our sleeve” and saying, “And at the end of the day, guys understand the strategy, it’s been a part of the union strategy since I’ve been in the league.” þþN.F.L. officials also contend that the decertification claim makes it difficult for players and their lawyers to resume collective bargaining negotiations before April 6. Lawyers representing players in the antitrust suit sent a letter to the league Monday saying they would be willing to resume talks toward a settlement of the lawsuit. League officials responded that they would negotiate only with the union. þþIf the N.F.L. maintains that the decertification is not valid, then it is obliged under labor law to deal only with the union, not with the lawyers for the players, the league said. And as long as the union maintains that it has decertified, its lawyers cannot engage in collective bargaining as agents of the players. þþ“The problem is if they come back and negotiate with us, that makes them look more like a union and undermines their lawsuit,” one N.F.L. official said. “They have to choose: do they want to act like union and get a deal, or act like plaintiffs and have a lawsuit?” þþJeff Pash, the league’s lead negotiator, said: “We don’t accept the claim that the union has decertified. We believe it is continuing to function as a labor organization. We believe they intend to negotiate. Let’s get over the folderol and get to it.” þþFinally, the brief argues that even if the court has jurisdiction, it should not issue an injunction because players “cannot show a likelihood of success” because the lockout is protected from antitrust scrutiny by the nonstatutory labor exemption. The brief argues that sufficient time has not passed that a rule permitting antitrust intervention would not interfere with collective bargaining. þþ“Under plaintiffs’ theory, the N.F.L. is subject to antitrust liability if it ceases or refuses to continue football operations, and it is subject to antitrust liability if it does not,” the brief reads. “This ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ approach is not and cannot be the law.” þþPlayer representatives just concluded their annual meeting in Marco Island, Fla., and they responded to the owners’ brief saying the league’s actions do not match its words. þþ“They say they want a fair deal,” said George Atallah, the players’ spokesman. “Instead, they locked out players, and they are now trying to litigate their way to preserving that lockout.” þþBut even a delay in a ruling on the injunction request would count as a victory for owners, said Gabe Feldman, the director of Tulane University’s sports law program, who has analyzed negotiations for the NFL Network. þþ“From the players’ perspective, justice delayed is justice denied,” Feldman wrote in an e-mail. “Every day the lockout remains in place, as bonuses remain unpaid and free agents remain unsigned, the players start to feel more economic pressure.” þþ
Source: NY Times
