Anyone hoping for a speedy end to the NFL’s nearly month-long
lockout had better be prepared to wait a while longer.
By Bob Glauber – Newsday
Anyone hoping for a speedy end to the NFL’s nearly month-long lockout had better be prepared to wait a while longer.
After Wednesday’s five-hour hearing on a preliminary injunction to lift the lockout by several current and former players suing the NFL an antitrust grounds, Judge Susan Nelson said she will rule “in a couple weeks” whether to grant the request.
Regardless of how Nelson rules, the case is expected to be appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which means a final ruling may not come until June.
Nelson extended an invitation for both sides to continue discussions under her auspices between now and her ruling, although it appears unlikely there would be more talks before her ruling.
Nelson heard arguments from player attorneys Jim Quinn and Michael Hausfeld, as well as NFL attorney David Boies, a prominent antitrust litigator who has been involved in some of the biggest cases in recent years, including United States v. Microsoft.
Quinn contended the lockout should be lifted because the players were suffering “irreparable harm” by not being able to sign contracts and train for the 2011 season at team-owned facilities. He also said that since the NFL Players Association decertified on March 11 and was no longer a union, the NFL couldn’t impose a lockout, which can only be used when a union exists in a collective bargaining relationship with owners.
“We’ve done what we’re allowed to do under the law,” Quinn said of the decertification process. “We need to get this lockout lifted as quickly as possible and get these players back playing.”
The players, who include quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, as well as Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora and six others, want the league’s lockout, which began March 12, to end and the NFL to resume operations. Also joining the lawsuit were retired players Carl Eller of the Vikings and Priest Holmes of the Chiefs, who had filed a separate lawsuit claiming the lockout was illegal.
Nelson suggested that the two sides resume federally mediated talks during her period of deliberation, although she did not order it. Afterward, both sides offered conflicting versions of how they felt Nelson meant the offer.
“It seems to me both sides are at risk and this is a very good time for you to come back to the table,” she said.
Attorneys for the players are willing to resume talks, but only if they involve settling the antitrust litigation. The NFL’s attorneys argue, however, that they want to resume mediated collective bargaining talks in Washington, D.C. that had previously lasted 16 days before ending on March 11.
Boies argued that Nelson doesn’t have jurisdiction to make a decision on lifting the lockout, citing the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932. Boies also said he believes no injunction decision should be made before the National Labor Relations Board hears a complaint lodged by the NFL for unfair labor practices. And Boies argued that the NFLPA’s decertification abruptly ended collective bargaining agreement negotiations, and as a result Nelson should allow the lockout to continue because it is a legal tool in labor talks.
Nelson admonished Boies and said she did have jurisdiction in the case, although she said she hadn’t made up her mind whether she will grant the injunction.
“The decision (to decertify) was a tactic in collective bargaining,” Boies said. “Do you flip a switch and the antitrust exemption ends? The players say yes. We say no.”
Quinn said the NFLPA’s previous decision to decertify in 1989 was upheld, and that this year’s action should be, too.
“Every argument has been made before and Judge (David) Doty found that the disclaimer (decertification) was valid,” Quinn said. “We’ve done what we’re allowed to do under the law.”
