Mortensen: Elliott Suspension Upheld **merged**

CowboyStar88

CowboyStar88

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,481
Reaction score
24,541
casmith07 said:
The courts may still disagree in order to protect the institution of collective bargaining, but whenever you negotiate a CBA - whether its pro sports or a steelworkers union - both parties or their representatives are expected to and presumed to negotiate in good faith.

In short, this means that despite the NFLPA "signing away rights," there's a rebuttable presumption that they "signed them away" under a good faith expectation that Goodell/the NFL would execute the powers fairly and in the spirit of the negotiations themselves in the agreement.

This allows for negotiations to be speedy and efficient, rather than the need to negotiate and "codify" every single bit of minutae in something like a CBA.

Additionally, the doctrine of fundamental fairness is another Constitutional Law principle that's applied or invoked for judicial procedure. Courts, oftentimes, like to point to constitutional law principles/doctrines in order to help make determinations on things like contract negotiations and yes, collective bargaining agreements (essentially, contracts).

In sum, the NFLPA gave Goodell disciplinary powers in good faith, trusting Goodell to act with fundamental fairness. Goodell and the league - in trying to railroad players or conspire against players - are, as the Judge in this case seemed to indicate, acting in a manner that is flatly unfair. If they're acting unfairly, then the NFLPA can argue that but for their assumption of good faith on the part of the league, they never would have entered into a bogus CBA or would have ensured they negotiated it differently -- essentially ask the court to use case law to fill in the blanks for fairness with respect to the disciplinary proceeding.

That wasn't short...but I hope that answers it? This is, of course, just one lawyer's interpretation and someone else will certainly have a different opinion.
Click to expand...


No that was very clear. Thank you!
 
Plumfool

Plumfool

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
964
casmith07 said:
The courts may still disagree in order to protect the institution of collective bargaining, but whenever you negotiate a CBA - whether its pro sports or a steelworkers union - both parties or their representatives are expected to and presumed to negotiate in good faith.

In short, this means that despite the NFLPA "signing away rights," there's a rebuttable presumption that they "signed them away" under a good faith expectation that Goodell/the NFL would execute the powers fairly and in the spirit of the negotiations themselves in the agreement.

This allows for negotiations to be speedy and efficient, rather than the need to negotiate and "codify" every single bit of minutae in something like a CBA.

Additionally, the doctrine of fundamental fairness is another Constitutional Law principle that's applied or invoked for judicial procedure. Courts, oftentimes, like to point to constitutional law principles/doctrines in order to help make determinations on things like contract negotiations and yes, collective bargaining agreements (essentially, contracts).



In sum, the NFLPA gave Goodell disciplinary powers in good faith, trusting Goodell to act with fundamental fairness. Goodell and the league - in trying to railroad players or conspire against players - are, as the Judge in this case seemed to indicate, acting in a manner that is flatly unfair. If they're acting unfairly, then the NFLPA can argue that but for their assumption of good faith on the part of the league, they never would have entered into a bogus CBA or would have ensured they negotiated it differently -- essentially ask the court to use case law to fill in the blanks for fairness with respect to the disciplinary proceeding.

That wasn't short...but I hope that answers it? This is, of course, just one lawyer's interpretation and someone else will certainly have a different opinion.
Click to expand...


And this is why 46 isn't the bottom line answer. Especially when it comes to a case like Zeke's.
 

Bigdog

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,815
Reaction score
11,455
stasheroo said:
You're thinking of Bill Polish I believe. But that kiper quote wasn't him.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Bill Polian was the GM. It has been a very long day for me at work and now that you mentioned it, he didn't say that about Kiper.
 
PhillyCowboysFan

PhillyCowboysFan

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,062
Reaction score
4,968
casmith07 said:
It's not that bad. The adversarial stuff I left behind. I'm just an in-house counsel who takes up veterans appeals pro bono now to make the world a little better place.
Click to expand...

Cas we go back a while and I have always thanked you for your service. But now I must thank you again for your continued service in representing the men and women that return home from serving this great nation to only get screwed out of their deserved services and support systems.
 
Fizziksman

Fizziksman

BanditHiro
Messages
5,119
Reaction score
3,513
PhillyCowboysFan said:
They well never get a more favorable CBA then the one they currently have. The NFLPA got majorly screwed because Smith had no idea what he was doing. I'm shocked he hasn't been sacked as of yet!
Click to expand...

Goodell can leverage out stuff like changing two preseason games to two regular seasons without increasing pay to the players, in exchange for getting rid of his absolute power when it comes to punishment and maybe allowing medical marijuana to be used.
 
DFWJC

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,601
Reaction score
48,367
Need to fix the thread title.
Elliott CAN play the 1st game
Then all bets are off.
 
TWOK11

TWOK11

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,160
Reaction score
11,475
CyberB0b said:
Not really. EE doesn't really have a case. It's been clear since the start.
Click to expand...

The claim is the NFL violated the CBA by not abiding by the agreed upon decision making process that must precede suspension rulings. This claim is either true or it's not, and his lawyers (and apparently the judge today) believe he has a legitimate enough case to pursue it further.
 
TWOK11

TWOK11

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,160
Reaction score
11,475
CyberB0b said:
They don't need much of one. It appears that the CBA gives the commish a lot of discretion.
Click to expand...

Almost unlimited discretion as a matter of fact, so long as he abides by the process agreed upon and described within the CBA.

It's possible this didn't happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top