Citing job security, coaches side with players in labor dispute

INDIANAPOLIS -- The NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief with the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, supporting the players' cause as the league appeals an injunction granted to lift the lockout.

The NFLCA's contention, as stated in the brief, is that the NFL "is attempting an end-run around a unanimous Supreme Court," saying that the court clearly stated the league is subject to the Sherman Act in the American Needle case last year and held it responsible for subsequent antitrust violations.

"To me, this is a real simple deal: Coaches are opposed to the lockout because it's negatively affecting coaches," said Larry Kennan, director of the NFL Coaches Association. "If it were a strike, we would be against the strike, like we were in '87. This just happens to be the owners, and we're opposed to them, because they're locking out. But if it was a strike, we'd be against the players."

Carucci: Coaches tweaking plans Coaches like Bill Belichick are accustomed to having control, but the lockout is forcing everyone to alter how training camps will be run, Vic Carucci writes.
More ...

The brief does not have the names of any current coaches attached to it.

"It's not something you need names to do," Kennan said. "We are by definition a friend of the court, we're telling the court we're doing this because we'd like the strike to end. It was never a requirement to put names on it."

Kennan confirmed that the association filed an AMICUS on American Needle. He also said that his belief is 10 to 12 teams have cut salary/benefits of coaches already.

The trade association representing the coaches went on to say that its members are suffering irreparable harm as part the lockout, now in its third month.

The brief reads: "Coaches who cannot produce immediate results suffer irreparable harm. They must uproot their families to seek employment elsewhere, and they have difficulty overcoming the perception of failure. The hours and effort demanded of assistant coaches are justified only by the prospect of lucrative and stable employment that follows proven success. Failure at an early stage of one's career, however, can falter career aspirations for many subsequent years."

In particular, the brief cited the NFL's eight new head coaches -- two of whom were promoted from positions as interim coaches -- as being in a particularly precarious situation.

Of those eight, only John Fox has previously been an NFL head coach, something that was also raised in the brief.

"To me, it's simple: The league mandated new coaches get an extra minicamp, because they realize they need extra time to get everything taught," Kennan said. "This is not the NFL of 20 years ago, where coaches have five years to get the program up and running. They have two or three years max, and then they're fired."

Kennan acknowledges there will be some "mixed emotions" among coaches regarding the association's decision.

"Some coaches will get nervous about it, most of them will probably be on teams not having salaries and benefits cut," Kennan said. "And those who are having those things cut will probably be more for us than against us. The reason we formed the coaches association is so we could speak with one voice, and guys didn't have to do that themselves."

The brief reads: "The lockout, if left in force, will prevent the coaches from meaningfully preparing and readying themselves for the season. While all coaches will be exposed to greater risk of failure, the eight teams with new coaching staffs are at particular risk. Since unforgiving expectations for immediate results will persist regardless of any lack of opportunity to prepare, these eight coaching staffs are losing irreplaceable time to prepare for a job that demands success.

"Thus, a lockout that prevents coaches from preparing their players for the season will inflict irreparable harm on all coaches; coaches on the eight new staffs -- especially the new assistant coaches on those staffs -- will suffer even greater harm that will be even more impossible to repair."

The coaches' brief also included charts showing an uptick in coaches fired after two and three years in an effort to show how important a single year with players can be.

From a legal standpoint, the NFLCA used the irreparable harm argument, as well as its stance on the Sherman Act and also the Norris-LaGuardia Act, to seek protection for its members as "nonunion employees."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello released a statement making it clear the league wasn't caught off guard by the Coaches Association's stance.

"The Coaches Association offices with the Players Association in Washington. So this comes as no surprise."

Kennan made it clear coaches just want to get back on the field.

"We want to get back to coaching; If there's a normalcy to coaching, we'd like that to return."

View the original article here

NFL tells court only talks can end lingering labor dispute

The NFL filed its reply brief to the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday -- the final piece of business due from either party before the June 3 hearing in St. Louis -- and the league took the opportunity to reiterate its core arguments.

The NFL told the appeals court that U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson lacks the jurisdiction to rule on the lockout-lifting injunction and that the NFL Players Asssociation's decertification needs to go before the National Labor Relations Board first. The league also said Nelson can't issue an injunction to end a lockout that "grows out of a labor dispute," per the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and the non-statutory labor exemption bars the antitrust claims made in the Brady et al lawsuit against the NFL.

Debate: When will NFL's lockout end? Soon? Sometime in July? Will the 2011 season even start on time? Our experts try to provide the answer that fans -- and Commissioner Roger Goodell -- want to know. More ...

The league's conclusion reads: "This Court should vacate the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction and remand with instructions to dismiss or stay the action."

A dismissal of the entire antitrust suit would deal a devastating blow to the players' side, and the NFL additionally asked that the court make clear a resolution to the situation "lies with the labor laws and not the antitrust courts."

The next round of court-ordered mediation between the parties is scheduled for June 7 in Minneapolis.

However, league sources indicate an appeals court ruling in the NFL's favor wouldn't necessarily discredit the whole of Brady et al. Rather, specific language in such a ruling would dictate any fallout on the larger antitrust suit.

Nelson granted the players the preliminary injunction and chose not to stay that decision in late April, leading to a brief lifting of the lockout. The appeals court first granted a temporary injunction of Nelson's ruling, leading to the lockout being reinstated, then on May 16 granted the NFL a stay-on-appeal, which preserves the league's right to lock out the players until a ruling on the appeal.

Last Friday, just minutes before the midnight deadline, lawyers for the players filed their response to the league's original appeal. In that document, the players described the NFL as a "cartel" that has skirted antitrust laws and damaged their careers with a work stoppage that has lasted more than two months.

In its Thursday filing, the NFL called that brief a "straw man" attack that made blanket suggestions and ignored important pieces of legislation.

The league combated the players' contention that the previous collective bargaining agreement included a provision that the league couldn't dispute a union decertification. The NFL says it agreed only not to dispute a decertification that came following the expiration of the CBA, and that provision isn't applicable because this one came hours before the labor deal expired March 11.

The primary argument of the NFL on the Norris-LaGuardia Act is that the lockout "involves or grows out of a labor dispute", which under the law would preclude Nelson from issuing the injunction. The league says labor disputes aren't limited to those involving unions and also dismisses volumes of cases that the players provide as precedent against the league's argument because of a lack of specific involvement of Norris-LaGuardia in those.

The NFL's argument on the NLRB's jurisdiction is fairly straight-forward, saying the labor board must rule on the validity of the NFLPA's decertification before any aspect of the Brady et al suit moves forward. The players' argument is that it's unlikely the NLRB would rule against them, on a claim that was filed over three months ago, that the decertification was valid and that deferring to the NLRB would only work to slow the process.

On the non-statutory labor exemption, the NFL claims it shouldn't have been subject to the antitrust case in the first place. The players' argument is that the exemption "lasts only until the collapse of the collective bargaining relationship," which they say happened at the time of decertification.

"No student of the history of this industry -- and no one familiar with the NFLPA leadership's very recent statements of purpose and intent -- believes that the Union is gone, let alone gone forever," attorneys for the NFL wrote.

Much of the brief was spent attempting to dispel precedents the players presented to support their case.

Judge Kermit Bye dissented on the decision to grant the NFL the temporary and the longer stays, and he's the only appointee of a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) on the three-judge panel. Judge Steve Colloton and William Duane Benton were appointed by President George W. Bush.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here