TB Suspension: Cheater free to play again

Dogman2

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,586
Missoula, MT
Just wanted to say thank you, once again, to both the lawyers and non-lawyers alike for some great discussion on the topic. I consistently learn more about the world every day through SoSH than any other source.
This is all any of us had in mind when suggesting people put things in perspective. Rational discourse is easy when emotion is held in check. In this case and because it has literally nothing to do with or affect us personally, checking emotion should not be all that difficult.

These last few pages have been fantastic.
 

biff_hardbody

lurker
Apr 27, 2016
189
It's obvious that every lawyer responding to you in this thread is a bleeding heart liberal, because no one gave you the real answer :) :



Generally speaking, the questions of whether there is a greater societal benefit in the availability of arbitration procedures with a substantial amount of finality rather than complete judicial review, and whether unions are better off being able to negotiate away the fundamental rights of their membership in exchange for things deemed to be more important have been answered in the affirmative by courts and Congress. That's the whole ball of wax. That there are instances in the micro perspective in which this does not hold to be true is of little moment.

You can agree or disagree with this all you want, of course. But, basically, your 10 year old kid could be asking why it's OK for guilty people to go free due to a search that violated the 4th Amendment.
Did the union negotiate away the right to fundamentally fair arbitration in cases of player discipline, or were they remiss not to include a clause that says "manifest disregard of evidence by the arbitrator is grounds for vacation of an award?" Can you even contract around fundamental fairness? Is the contract even valid if the NFLPA reasonably believed "manifest disregard of evidence" to be beyond the scope of the Commissioner's powers? Perhaps it is time to update the FAA.

Chen made a determination of law as he is entitled to do, but restating the popular media narrative without much investigation into the facts is a bit of a slap in the face. Echoing what was mentioned above, I am not satisfied with judicial economy being a driving factor in his opinion.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
35,509
Rotten Apple
Chen made a determination of law as he is entitled to do, but restating the popular media narrative without much investigation into the facts is a bit of a slap in the face.
Absolutely this.

Doesn't help his credibility much (to say the least) and just reminds those of us who know better that this whole sham continues to disappoint in the dumbest ways. I really hope this isn't the last word.
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
Did the union negotiate away the right to fundamentally fair arbitration in cases of player discipline, or were they remiss not to include a clause that says "manifest disregard of evidence by the arbitrator is grounds for vacation of an award?"

I am not satisfied with judicial economy being a driving factor in his opinion.
Taking the second part first, I'd suggest it's not so much economy for the judiciary as it is for the parties to the thousands of Collective Bargaining Agreements in effect across the country. Speaking as the President of a small local union, I guarantee that if we, in seeking resolution of a dispute with management, had to prepare for and then finance not only arbitration, but also litigation, we'd be tits-up in no time.

As to your first question, the players' union didn't even insist on the word "arbitration" in article 46 (nor "arbitrator"). I pointed this out in the other thread, but the concession that Goodell, as "hearing officer", is entitled to all the standard judicial deference afforded a traditional arbitrator was how this case was (potentially, and ultimately) doomed.

My question for the lawyers: have you ever heard of a CBA (other than the Article 46 we all now know too well) which allows one of the parties in dispute to sit as arbitrator?
Certainly none of the case law (which at once informed the panel's reversal, and also might have been affected by an affirmance) involves any...
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
22,099
Here
I tend to agree with you that we don't have evidence of the underlying infraction here. The complication is that this is not what the 2nd Circuit was asked to rule on. They ruled that the CBA gave Goodell the powers that he exercised and so they dispatched the case on those grounds.

Now, I think they got it wrong and I think part of what drove them to get it wrong was that they gave incredible deference to the nonsense that the NFL was selling without regard to the factual record. That's a not-insignificant mistake and does not speak well for them. Whether they backed into that conclusion because they knew how they were going to rule or they allowed a mistaken belief in Brady's guilt to color their view of the relevant question is something we can't know.

It's also (IMO) the only chance that Brady/the NFLPA has to get this decision reviewed by the entire 2nd Circuit. (Which, as others have stated, is entirely unlikely.)
I get the legal aspect is different - though I still disagree as a matter of law with their ruling - but my point was more to the actual aspects of Brady being guilty of the alleged acts or not, irrespective of the legal case. People want to weigh text messages from 8 months prior to the alleged act against what is essentially scientific proof that nothing happened and it drives me bonkers. If the science suggests nothing happened, the text messages, phone calls, "cell phone destruction," etc., must amount to nothing as it pertains to the AFCCG.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,909
Nighthob, The two judges you agree with don't get the final say. The two that did count didn't say "we don't care".
I know that they didn't have the final say, that's my point. They explicitly pointed out the ways in which the NFL violated the CBA. The other two justices explicitly said "We don't care, the NFL decided that they can ignore the CBA when it suits them and that's enough for us."

It's actually a subversion of labor rights, but it's exactly what you expect in a country that's been careening out of control to the right for a generation.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
5,479
Needham, MA
I know that they didn't have the final say, that's my point. They explicitly pointed out the ways in which the NFL violated the CBA. The other two justices explicitly said "We don't care, the NFL decided that they can ignore the CBA when it suits them and that's enough for us."

It's actually a subversion of labor rights, but it's exactly what you expect in a country that's been careening out of control to the right for a generation.
We need someone who can make America great again.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
22,473
Melrose, MA
I can't speak to a) because I don't have the legal background to do so (though it does seem like the PA went for the PA view versus Brady view). However there is a shitload of anecdotal evidence that there was impropriety - some of which was outlined in the after the fact letter to the court calling out Clement. There was intentional mis-characterizations in the Wells report. There was a changing of the goalposts described by the dissenting opinion during the appeal. There is a bunch of things (which may be legally moot, I don't know).

b) There is nothing in any bargained agreement that requires players to turn over their personal property during an investigation. Nothing. Organization property is bound differently. He could not be compelled to turn over his phone. Favre didn't turn over his and was merely fined. Even that was beyond the bounds of the scope of the bargained agreement. Brady should have set his cell phone on the table in front of Wells and said "you mean this phone? um, no you can't have it because there is no bargained requirement to give it to you - you have all the relevant data on organization devices". (Yee screwed his client there.) No bargained requirement means his refusal can't be construed as failure to comply - Wells himself admitted he never told Brady he would face consequences - because there wasn't a legal basis to compel him to provide the cell phone.
He would have had a better shot a fighting out point b if he still had the phone in his possession.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
32,504
We all know Brady was railroaded for a larger purpose but to everyone else not really paying attention, it WAS about the violation. And now Brady is forever branded a cheater so that the owners can squeeze more money out of the next CBA, one that will have zero impact on Brady. That has to be tough for him to take.
 

cornwalls@6

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
997
from the wilds of western ma
So, did he just admit, on national television, that every "Integrity of the game" statement he made at various points of this farce were complete bullshit? I've long given up on the hope that there will some comeuppance for him, but that seems like he may really stepped on his stuff, from a PR standpoint. And if it was never about the violation, and his authority under the CBA has been affirmed, at least for now, then why not just drop the suspension. Point made, everybody moves on. He, and his masters, are just beyond reprehensible. I hope TB/ NFLPA explores every possible legal avenue available to them. Anti-trust, defemation, take shot at SCOTUS, etc. Exhaust them all, and tie this league up in court for years. Or at least until/if they are able to negotiate this absurd and offensive concentration of power out of this ass-wipe's hands.
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
28,093
South Boston
Did the union negotiate away the right to fundamentally fair arbitration in cases of player discipline,
There are posts from a number of us in the earlier thread discussing this issue. I'm of the opinion that agreeing to have a dispute arbitrated by one of the parties to the dispute is a per se unfair process and I'm at a bit of a loss for how anyone could think differently. But if, in return for such a provision, the union were provided with eleventy billion dollars every year to be dispersed to the membership, we'd probably care less about that waiver, right?

or were they remiss not to include a clause that says "manifest disregard of evidence by the arbitrator is grounds for vacation of an award?" Can you even contract around fundamental fairness?
CBAs are basically contracts on steroids. You can contract around things in a CBA that you probably wouldn't be able to contract around in any other context.
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
28,093
South Boston
I know that they didn't have the final say, that's my point. They explicitly pointed out the ways in which the NFL violated the CBA. The other two justices explicitly said "We don't care, the NFL decided that they can ignore the CBA when it suits them and that's enough for us."

It's actually a subversion of labor rights, but it's exactly what you expect in a country that's been careening out of control to the right for a generation.
Stop using the word, "explicitly."
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
35,509
Rotten Apple
If it was never about the "violation" then why did Roger not correct the false information (that his office likely leaked to Mort) while a signature team of the league prepared for the Super Bowl? If it was never about the "violation" then why drag one of the league's biggest stars through the mud for over a year? If it was never about a "violation" then why not release the inflation data Roger collected last season? Roger is a liar, an asshole and a bully.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
32,504
If it was never about the "violation" then why did Roger not correct the false information (that his office likely leaked to Mort) while a signature team of the league prepared for the Super Bowl? If it was never about the "violation" then why drag one of the league's biggest stars through the mud for over a year? If it was never about a "violation" then why not release the inflation data Roger collected last season? Roger is a liar, an asshole and a bully.
And he's never once had to answer these kind of follow up questions in an interview. I would pay to watch Megyn Kelly interview Goodell on this stuff. But in the end nobody will bring it up so we just have to take it. Have to wonder what those conversations were like with the Kraft's.
 

Prodigal Sox

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
220
between the buttons
If it was never about the "violation" then why did Roger not correct the false information (that his office likely leaked to Mort) while a signature team of the league prepared for the Super Bowl? If it was never about the "violation" then why drag one of the league's biggest stars through the mud for over a year? If it was never about a "violation" then why not release the inflation data Roger collected last season? Roger is a liar, an asshole and a bully.
He is just trying to deflect from the original issue were some people are realizing never really occurred and that the nfl offices were ignorant of basic science. All he needs to do is have the sports media chase the new shining object which they will be all to willing to do like a bunch of brain dead cats.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
8,099
I know that they didn't have the final say, that's my point. They explicitly pointed out the ways in which the NFL violated the CBA. The other two justices explicitly said "We don't care, the NFL decided that they can ignore the CBA when it suits them and that's enough for us."

It's actually a subversion of labor rights, but it's exactly what you expect in a country that's been careening out of control to the right for a generation.
That's not an accurate reading of the decision.

Berman and Katzman opined that the NFL's actions violated the CBA, supporting the NFLPA's position. Key word is opinion; these things are not always black and white. Chin and Parker basically rejected the arguments that the NFL's actions violated the CBA, and furthermore ruled that the CBA gives the commissioner pretty wide latitude in deciding matters such as this. Both sides had plenty of legal cites to support their position, and the split nature of the decision does imply it was a closer call than a "slam dunk".

IANAL, but I have read the relevant sections of the CBA. And I can see, given how the CBA is written, that Brady could possibly get screwed here. And he did. I thought Brady was free and clear after Berman's ruling, as reversals happen less often than affirmations. But, in the legal issues thread, quite a few of the board's legal experts took time out of their lives to thoroughly highlight some areas where the NFL could prevail.

The justice system cannot guarantee an outcome. Nor can it guarantee perfection, or even "fairness". All it can do is offer a venue for both sides of a dispute to put forth their arguments, and provide a mechanism for deciding those disputes consistent with US legal principles.
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,581
I pesonally would have gone in full-bore on arbitrator partiality--it's the actual dominant issue in the case so why dance around it, and when last I looked there was actually a significant circuit split on the standard to be applied so it even gives you an ultra-long shot at going to the supreme court--but that's a minority opinion and I can easily understand why Kessler went with notice.
Shelterdog is onto something IMO. That's an argument I tried to assert early on, but the thread was absorbed with The Ideal Gas Law and other factoids, so I dropped it, but basically the proposition is that an arbitration requires that the arbitrator be impartial, even though he will be biased, as we all are. There's an interesting thread on this distinction here:http://tinyurl.com/h8vbtr2. A basic concept is that we all have bias or inclinations based on life experience, but when we're in a fact finding mode, we are expected to exercise impartiality or fairness to all parties, even though that duty is not explicitly stated.

In civil law, this is reflected in the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, set forth in commercial contexts, usually involving improper exercise of ostensibly-unlimited rights granted to one party. I have no idea if this carries over into CBA-negotiated rights. I can see the argument against it, because implying that duty in the labor context invites appellate courts into the kind of detailed review of routine cases they want to avoid, but does that also apply to fact finders, in this case the USDC? Are they permitted to delve further into details when a party applies for enforcement of an arbitration award? Does the peculiar fact that a party is allowed to arbitrate its own disputes put it in a narrow category of cases where the USDC (or state court equivalent) is permitted to determine if the arbitrator has met basic standards of impartiality? If the arbitration or dispute resolution mechanism allows the NFL to do whatever it wants, without judicial review, what's the point?

There must be an answer to these questions somewhere,but I'm no labor or employment lawyer. I realize this is a bit of a thread hijack. However, while I think the Brady issue is resolved legally, I still have an intellectual interest in finding out whether a labor arbitrator has total leeway in how s/he conducts the arbitration, in circumstances where the arbitrator is one of the parties. Is this even an arbitration in the normal sense of the word?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,362
If it was never about the "violation" then why did Roger not correct the false information (that his office likely leaked to Mort) while a signature team of the league prepared for the Super Bowl? If it was never about the "violation" then why drag one of the league's biggest stars through the mud for over a year? If it was never about a "violation" then why not release the inflation data Roger collected last season? Roger is a liar, an asshole and a bully.
I don't think Goodell was saying that ALL OF THIS wasn't about the violation, but rather that the Court of Appeals' decision specifically wasn't about the violation, but rather about the CBA.

This whole episode is just.... absurd to the Nth degree.

EDIT: For some reason my spell checker keeps correcting "Goodell" to "Goodall".....
 
Last edited:

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
7,985
Panama
I don't think Goodall was saying that ALL OF THIS wasn't about the violation, but rather that the Court of Appeals' decision specifically wasn't about the violation, but rather about the CBA.

This whole episode is just.... absurd to the Nth degree.
Agreed. The whole appeals process plus the decisions were never based on whether what Brady knew or did, but rather on the notice and fairness of the punishment as per the CBA.

The Second Circuit reversed, and even though the Judges went on about the facts in their decision, in the end it was about the NFLPA giving the right to the NFL to make these decisions. The Chief Judge disagreed, also based on the CBA.

I totally agree that there was nothing fair about the report, but that was not part of the decision. Whether the lawyers could have taken it there (and subpenaed (sp?) the relevant information and communicatons) is another story.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
3,260
Somerville, MA
I don't think Goodall was saying that ALL OF THIS wasn't about the violation, but rather that the Court of Appeals' decision specifically wasn't about the violation, but rather about the CBA.

This whole episode is just.... absurd to the Nth degree.
Exactly. When asked about the court case he always says it's not about Brady but about his power. When asked about the Patriots and Brady's punishment his stock answer is "integrity of the game" with no explanation. It's a shit answer but that's his answer to the punishment. He probably hasn't even given it in a while because it's such shit. And it's the shit answer he has to give because that's the only section of the shit CBA that lets him do whatever he wants.
 

biff_hardbody

lurker
Apr 27, 2016
189
There are posts from a number of us in the earlier thread discussing this issue. I'm of the opinion that agreeing to have a dispute arbitrated by one of the parties to the dispute is a per se unfair process and I'm at a bit of a loss for how anyone could think differently. But if, in return for such a provision, the union were provided with eleventy billion dollars every year to be dispersed to the membership, we'd probably care less about that waiver, right?
We would. Even if the CBA explicitly stated the Commissioner may appoint himself as arbitrator, we would be satisfied that power was negotiated for. Instead, the contract was silent as to who the Commissioner may appoint. In this circumstance, we are in agreement that it is a per se unfair process to appoint a party to the dispute as arbitrator, and I would say indicative of bad faith.

What bugs me is that Judge Chin (mea culpa on my misspelling), stuck his head in the sand and said "facts don't matter, they are bound by the contract," when the terms of the contract allow for bad faith. But I am pissing in the wind.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
4,956
Taking the second part first, I'd suggest it's not so much economy for the judiciary as it is for the parties to the thousands of Collective Bargaining Agreements in effect across the country. Speaking as the President of a small local union, I guarantee that if we, in seeking resolution of a dispute with management, had to prepare for and then finance not only arbitration, but also litigation, we'd be tits-up in no time.

As to your first question, the players' union didn't even insist on the word "arbitration" in article 46 (nor "arbitrator"). I pointed this out in the other thread, but the concession that Goodell, as "hearing officer", is entitled to all the standard judicial deference afforded a traditional arbitrator was how this case was (potentially, and ultimately) doomed.

My question for the lawyers: have you ever heard of a CBA (other than the Article 46 we all now know too well) which allows one of the parties in dispute to sit as arbitrator?
Certainly none of the case law (which at once informed the panel's reversal, and also might have been affected by an affirmance) involves any...
Is the term "hearing officer" legally defined? If not, where and when was it established that the Commissioner when acting as a hearing officer is given full rights as an arbitrator?
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
Even if the CBA explicitly stated the Commissioner may appoint himself as arbitrator, we would be satisfied that power was negotiated for. Instead, the contract was silent
Actually, that's not right. Here's the infamous Article 46 (this is from Section 2, "Hearings" (emphasis added) - note, 1(a) refers to discipline for "conduct detrimental..."):

(a) Hearing Officers. For appeals under Section 1(a) above, the Commissioner shall, after consultation with the Executive Director of the NFLPA, appoint one or more designees to serve as hearing officers. For appeals under Section 1(b) above, the parties shall, on an annual basis, jointly select two (2) or more designees to serve as hearing officers. The salary and reasonable expenses for the designees’ services shall be shared equally by the NFL and the NFLPA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in any appeal under Section 1(a) of this Article at his discretion.
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
Is the term "hearing officer" legally defined?
Not with any specificity. Black's Law Dictionary defines "Hearing Officer" quite capaciously, as either synonymous with, 1) "Administrative Law Judge" (which is basically a generic official who has the capacity to make findings/rulings in some non-Article III forum); or, 2, (and this is good), "Judicial Officer" which can include "A person who serves in an appointed capacity at the pleasure of an appointing judge, and whose actions and decisions are reviewed by that judge."
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
where and when was it established that the Commissioner when acting as a hearing officer is given full rights as an arbitrator?
That was my question. I can't imagine it's been established as such. Clement operated under the assumption (never challenged) that, since he's an adjudicator of a kind of claim within a labor agreement, he should get all the usual deference of a traditional labor arbitrator. That proposition has always seems bizarre (at best) to me.
 
Last edited:

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
4,956
Thank you. I imagine it's too late, but I wonder if that argument would allow the courts to rule in our favor without having to establish any precedents for the rest of the legal community. "Hey, we agreed he could act as a hearing officer. We didn't agree that he could act as an arbitrator. If we wanted to let him be an arbitrator, the CBA would have specifically used that term."
 

biff_hardbody

lurker
Apr 27, 2016
189
Actually, that's not right. Here's the infamous Article 46 (this is from Section 2, "Hearings" (emphasis added) - note, 1(a) refers to discipline for "conduct detrimental..."):

(a) Hearing Officers. For appeals under Section 1(a) above, the Commissioner shall, after consultation with the Executive Director of the NFLPA, appoint one or more designees to serve as hearing officers. For appeals under Section 1(b) above, the parties shall, on an annual basis, jointly select two (2) or more designees to serve as hearing officers. The salary and reasonable expenses for the designees’ services shall be shared equally by the NFL and the NFLPA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in any appeal under Section 1(a) of this Article at his discretion.
Well shiver me timbers, nothing worse than shooting your own argument in the foot. I stand corrected. The NFLPA's position is tough to get behind.
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
28,093
South Boston
Yeah. That's why, when @Otis Foster (rightly) raised it and we batted it about a bit in the other thread, we were like, "Um . . . I don't know . . . like, of course it's unfair . . . but they agreed to it, so we probably have to assume that they got value someplace else . . . I can't find any cases about something this stupid."
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
Bronze Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Thank you. I imagine it's too late, but I wonder if that argument would allow the courts to rule in our favor without having to establish any precedents for the rest of the legal community. "Hey, we agreed he could act as a hearing officer. We didn't agree that he could act as an arbitrator. If we wanted to let him be an arbitrator, the CBA would have specifically used that term."
There's nothing in the FAA or the case law that requires parties to refer to the person who resolves their dispute as "arbitrator." The point is to protect negotiated agreements to settle a dispute in the manner chosen. Whether you call him arbitrator, hearing officer, or The Great Decider doesn't have any relevance to the analysis. He's still the arbitrator under the law.
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
There's nothing in the FAA or the case law that requires parties to refer to the person who resolves their dispute as "arbitrator." The point is to protect negotiated agreements to settle a dispute in the manner chosen. Whether you call him arbitrator, hearing officer, or The Great Decider doesn't have any relevance to the analysis. He's still the arbitrator under the law.
Ok, I'm gonna push back on this a bit. Their CBA also happens to contain a separate, and explicitly arbitration, provision: Article 43:

"ARTICLE 43 NON-INJURY GRIEVANCE

Section 1. Definition: Any dispute (hereinafter referred to as a “grievance”) arising after the execution of this Agreement and involving the interpretation of, application of, or compliance with, any provision of this Agreement, the NFL Player Contract, the Practice Squad Player Contract, or any applicable provision of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws or NFL Rules pertaining to the terms and conditions of employment of NFL players, will be resolved exclusively in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Article, except wherever another method of dispute resolution is set forth elsewhere in this Agreement."

....


Section 6. Arbitration Panel: There will be a panel of four (4) arbitrators, whose ap- pointment must be accepted in writing by the NFLPA and the Management Council
..."


That last bolded clause in Sec 1 won the day throughout this process, but was that appropriate? Which "manner (has been) chosen" depends upon the propriety of construing Brady's involvement as "conduct detrimental...". Insofar as Kessler and Co. contended that his alleged actions were not conduct detrimental, it would seem that an Article 43 Grievance was instead the proper recourse (rather than an Article 46 "Hearing").

(I believe it is a well-settled principle of labor law that when there is controversy as to whether or not an arbitrator should decide an issue, the arbitrator herself decides whether or not she should/shall decide it."
But, which "arbitrator"?
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
Bronze Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
This was not a player grievance. It was unquestionably commissioner discipline. Push back all you like, but you're making one of those "the IRS is illegal because of the Magna Carta" arguments.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
27,443
AZ
There's nothing in the FAA or the case law that requires parties to refer to the person who resolves their dispute as "arbitrator." The point is to protect negotiated agreements to settle a dispute in the manner chosen. Whether you call him arbitrator, hearing officer, or The Great Decider doesn't have any relevance to the analysis. He's still the arbitrator under the law.
The law, does, though require "arbitration." At least the FAA does, and I assume that principle carries over under labor law principles. I think there are some cases suggesting that not any agreed upon dispute resolution system constitutes arbitration. For example, I think some courts hold that appraisals aren't covered by the FAA, and say the test is whether "the process at issue sufficiently resembles classic arbitration." I would think you could give the arbitrator a name that undermines a suggestion that he is acting in a classic arbitration role. I've also always thought -- as I posted about early on in the law thread -- that there should be space to argue that when a party delegates to itself the role of decisionmaker, there might be spaces for argument under the FAA to depart from traditional standards. That Kessler didn't make this argument may suggest that it's foreclosed. Or it may suggest they should have paid me to figure it out instead. ;0)
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
I would think you could give the arbitrator a name that undermines a suggestion that he is acting in a classic arbitration role.
This is a super provincial example perhaps, but my local CBA provides for an "appeal" mechanism (sound familiar?) when a player (we're orchestra musicians) is fired for musical reasons. The appeal is heard by a panel which is determined in advance. No one involved presumes that this process constitutes arbitration in any sense (we (like the NFL!) have a separate arbitration provision for contract interpretation/implementation disputes). Also, not entirely dissimilarly, the extent to which the outcome of this termination appeal can be grieved (and ultimately taken to arbitration) is limited by the text of the CBA, but our understanding is that an arbitrator would ultimately rule on anything brought before him (including the effect of the limiting clause).
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
There was also an interesting exchange during oral arguments for the Peterson case in the 8th circuit (a less convoluted scenario since Goodell wasn't the hearing officer, Harold Henderson was):


Judge (not sure which one): “Who’s the arbitrator under Article 46?”

Nash: “The parties have agreed all appeals will be heard by the Commissioner or his designee... Here it was Harold Henderson.”

Judge: “So the arbitrator in the first instance, according to the text here, is the commissioner?"

Nash: “No; in this case it’s Mr. Henderson.”

Judge: “What? Where do you get that? What’s the function of Goodell then? Just another management official, like a team owner?”

Nash proceeds to explain Goodall's authority to delegate, and closes with, "and your honor, while that may be an unusual procedure, it’s at least consistent with the law...."

Judge: “But, well, I’m having trouble analogizing to more typical Collective Bargaining situations, and the trouble I’m having is, what if the commissioner violates something with respect to this section? the law of the shop? What’s the judicial review of that?”


Btw, anyone know what the hell is going on with this case? The arguments were held in October...
 

dylanmarsh

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
6,281
Goodell is on ESPN talking about the "facts of the case" and "integrity" of the game. Fucker has told this tale so many times he's convinced that Brady did something.
 

OilCanShotTupac

Sunny von Bulow
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
17,325
The 718
This is a super provincial example perhaps, but my local CBA provides for an "appeal" mechanism (sound familiar?) when a player (we're orchestra musicians) is fired for musical reasons. The appeal is heard by a panel which is determined in advance. No one involved presumes that this process constitutes arbitration in any sense (we (like the NFL!) have a separate arbitration provision for contract interpretation/implementation disputes). Also, not entirely dissimilarly, the extent to which the outcome of this termination appeal can be grieved (and ultimately taken to arbitration) is limited by the text of the CBA, but our understanding is that an arbitrator would ultimately rule on anything brought before him (including the effect of the limiting clause).
Not provincial at all. On point, really.

Big question: who picks the panel?
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
Not provincial at all. On point, really.

Big question: who picks the panel?
The panel simply consists of the "principal" players (each of whom will normally be a member of the Union)... So, in essence, one party (management) may terminate a musician; the other party's leaders (the principals) will hear any appeal.
In this sense, I suppose you could say it's the opposite of Article 46...
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,228
Boston, MA
Mark Daniels ‏@MarkDanielsPJ 19m19 minutes ago
Goodell: It was an independent investigation... I’m not sure how much more independent you can get.



FULL comments can be found here
Is there anybody knowledgeable about this case who has ever interviewed Goodell and can readily and easily dispute his absurd assertion about independence and what the court decided (i.e. labor law ruling, not a ruling on TB's guilt or innocence)? Are all these interviewers just dopes; or do they not give a shit, or both? I know the answer: they don't really care, but it's exceedingly frustrating. I've limited my intake over the last month to SOSH, and will likely continue to do so for another month, and I'm thankful for it.