Excel to rep QB Matt Ryan off the field Labor & Agents: Marketing Butler Goldstein takes lead WNBPA role Montag helps Albert with NBC deal Gilbert would seek 50-50 revenue split Labor & Agents: Regulation overhaul NFLPA chief Smith earns $2.95M Labor & Agents: Investing in Crunch Keeping grip on the first round Sharp drop in underclassmen declaring
Upcoming Conferences and Events
SBJ/April 11-17, 2011/Labor and Agents
Judge’s questions, parting words give some hope to players’ side
Published April 14, 2011, Page 25
Her NFL lockout hearing was nearing the end of four hours and 17 minutes of grueling, complex legal arguments, with more than half of that in robust give-and-take with owners’ lawyer David Boies. Nelson allowed the attorneys for the current NFL players and retirees their full say, too.
With the clock in her St. Paul courtroom ticking toward 3:15 p.m., the judge informed both sides that she would need “a couple of weeks” to come to a fair ruling on whether to issue a preliminary injunction, sought by the players in this Tom Brady v. NFL case. The players want her to lift the lockout imposed by the owners last month.
Known for her mediation and settlement skills
David Boies (top) argued for the owners, Jim Quinn (with Jeffrey Kessler) for the players.
Her suggestion to use the auspices of her court seemed to be a mini-victory for the players. Theirs is a litigation strategy to be played out in court. Having “disclaimed” their affiliation with a union, they believe the dispute with the owners is an antitrust case for the courts. Having a federal judge oversee the outcome of this current struggle with the owners would begin to look a lot like how the league’s labor life was resolved by Judge David Doty in 1993, with a court-supervised settlement.
For the players, returning to St. Paul soon to use Nelson’s chambers as a venue for resolving the matter seemed, on the face of it, like a good idea.
“It’s something we’ll consider,” players’ lawyer Jim Quinn told reporters outside the courthouse afterward. “We heard what the judge said, and she said it forcefully.”
For the owners, putting their future in Nelson’s hands wasn’t as appealing. “We believe these kind of matters ought to be settled at the collective-bargaining table, not in federal court,” said Boies, who gently sparred with Nelson through three separate sessions in which she allowed him great latitude to attempt to convince her that the league’s lockout was legal.
In the owners’ view, Boies said, bargaining should be overseen by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, adding to the reporters afterward: “We don’t need a settlement of this [antitrust] lawsuit. We need a collective-bargaining agreement.”
Earlier in the day, Nelson, fully engaged and asking incisive questions to all the lawyers, repeatedly hinted that she was buying the players’ arguments and not the owners’. The players’ basic point: She has the jurisdiction to lift the lockout and, under some undefined system, put the players back to work. The lockout, the players argue, trips the 32 owners into an antitrust violation because the players are no longer in a union. It also inflicts “irreparable harm” on the players, and Nelson acknowledged the players had a “strong” case on that score.
Boies disagreed and repeatedly argued that the lockout is a matter for the National Labor Relations Board, not Nelson. He also argued that a 1932 federal law known as the Norris-LaGuardia Act bars her from issuing an injunction against the lockout. But Nelson, examining the act in detail, expressed “having trouble” with that Boies assertion; Norris-LaGuardia was enacted to protect unions against overzealous federal judges.
“Isn’t there some bit of irony,” she stated, that the Norris-LaGuardia Act “intended to halt strike-breaking judges should now be used by a wealthy multiemployer unit seeking to break a players union?”
Retired NFL players, led by former Minnesota Vikings’ great Carl Eller, also sought to lift the injunction and begin an antirust case against the owners, claiming their pensions and health benefits were at stake. Without objection from the current or former players or the league, Nelson consolidated the Brady and Eller cases.
As for any Nelson decision, it’s sure to be appealed by the losing side. Using a football analogy, Boies said: “I think this is the first quarter. Hopefully, we can divert the game back to the playing field.”
But, not, it seems, any time soon.
Jay Weiner is a writer in Minnesota.