Unless they make explicit reference to what Stern is referring to -- such as the guarantee "not applicable during a strike, lockout or other work stoppage" -- I would not anticipate the Court reading that language in nor invalidating the contracts. Skip to main content Skip to navigation. Would decertification kill current contracts? What you missed when Dwyane Wade put the Celtics to sleep. Don't expect some high-tension meeting like Monday's every two weeks.
Instead, pushes will be made in time for major moments: to save the Christmas Day games last week of November and first week of December are the critical times there and to save the season in some form early January. Any talks held in the next month could very well be window dressing. How it starts: This is the de facto next step. Unless Path 1 or Path 2 commence, this is what happens. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.
By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. Spanish La Liga View team list. Filed under: NBA. Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. But the actual issue of the lockout will continue. Bresnahan is from Los Angeles, started with The Times after graduating the University of Wisconsin in , and has also covered the L.
Kings, pro beach volleyball and numerous colleges and high schools. He left The Times in UCLA Sports. UCLA vs. Colorado: College football betting lines, odds and how to watch. How to watch the best games in college football this weekend. All Sections. Not necessarily. Although antitrust litigation is painfully slow, expensive, and unpredictable, the mere threat of decertification followed by antitrust litigation might cause the owners to move at the bargaining table.
In other words, the owners might be willing to make concessions at the bargaining table to avoid the inherent uncertainty of antitrust litigation. Of course, decertification might have the opposite effect. The owners, wary of setting a precedent of caving at the bargaining table when the players threaten to decertify, might dig in their heels even further and call the players' decertification bluff.
Disclaimer would permit the players to file their antitrust suit immediately. The NBA owners would argue that any such lawsuit must be heard in NY, so the players could either file in NY unlikely or file in another jurisdiction and engage in a legal battle to allow them to choose where the case is heard more likely. Even if it gets all the way to an actual decertification vote, the season isn't necessarily lost. It is possible--although a lot of things would have to go right for the players for this to occur--that the players are able to vote to decertify and file an antitrust in late December and get a court to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the lockout by early January.
That's a bit of a long shot, but it's possible, and the mere possibility of it could be enough to convince enough of the owners to make a deal to avoid that outcome. Did the NFL players decertify their union earlier this year? Following the dissolution of the NFLPA, a group of players filed a class action antitrust suit in federal district court in Minnesota, challenging the NFL lockout which was implemented the next day and a variety of player restraints.
The players claimed that the lockout was an illegal "group boycott" under the antitrust laws and asked for a preliminary injunction to block the lockout, and for treble ie, three-times damages for any harm caused by the player restraints imposed by the owners. In court, the owners raised three defenses in response to the players' attempt to enjoin the lockout. First, the owners argued that the Norris-LaGuardia Act a set of federal labor laws precludes federal courts from enjoining lockouts.
Second, the owners contended that the dissolution of the players' union was a "sham" and that the collective bargaining relationship still exists. Therefore, the owners argued the non-statutory labor exemption is still in effect and immunizes the owners from antitrust attack. Third, the owners claimed that the pursuant to the doctrine of "primary jurisdiction," the court should defer to the National Labor Relations Board's ruling on the validity of the NFLPA's disclaimer of interest before proceeding with the case.
Judge Susan Nelson rejected all of the owners' arguments and enjoined ie, lifted the lockout on April 25, Four days later, an Eighth Circuit panel voted to issue an emergency, temporary stay of Judge Nelson's order ie, they put it on hold and reinstituted the lockout.
The same divided panel then granted a longer stay pending resolution of the appeal on the preliminary injunction, concluding that, based on their interpretation of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, they "have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League's lockout.
In its opinion, the Eighth Circuit did not address the non-statutory labor exemption or primary jurisdiction issues.
The Eighth Circuit then remanded the case back to Judge Nelson to proceed with the remaining issues. Before the case progressed any further, however, the NFL and the NFL players settled the litigation, the NFLPA re-formed as a union, and the two sides agreed to a new year collective bargaining agreement. First, only courts within the Eighth Circuit are bound by Brady, and it is a virtual certainty that any antitrust suit brought by the NBA players would not be filed in a court within the Eighth Circuit the NBA filed its preemptory legal action in NY, and the players would likely file their suit in an employee-friendly jurisdiction like California.
Second, let's be clear as to what the Eight Circuit decided in the Brady case. The district court preliminarily concluded that the lockout was illegal and granted the injunction. The Eighth Circuit reversed, narrowly holding that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents federal courts from enjoining lockouts.
The court did not conclude that the lockout was illegal and did not conclude that the players were not entitled to bring their antitrust claim. So, even if a court was bound by Brady, it could still determine that the players are able to bring a post-dissolution antitrust suit challenging the lockout, and that the lockout was illegal.
In other words, Brady does not prevent the NBA players from dissolving their union and bringing a successful antitrust suit for three-times damages. Third, decertification as opposed to disclaimer may give the NBA players a more powerful argument in court. In Brady, the NFL argued that the NFLPA's disclaimer of interest was a sham, in part, because it "lack[ed] the formality of decertification" and was "literally a paper-thin statement, issued unilaterally by a union, that may readily be overturned.
0コメント