Some really cool ideas up until the God part. Seriously you were so proud of yourself you just decided oooh I’m indulge myself.
Yet more from Judge Nelson's decision, aka I'm losing followers while getting a pro-union boner
- Accordingly, it is difficult to accept the NFL’s argument that, in this antitrust action, the question of whether the Union’s disclaimer is invalid is a “threshold predicate,” rather than a collateral issue, where the Supreme Court has concluded that “the federal courts may decide labor law questions that emerge as collateral issues in suits brought under independent federal remedies, including the antitrust laws.”
- This Court is unable to discern much, if any, basis for referring the disclaimer issue to the NLRB. The issue of the Players’ disclaimer of the Union as their collective bargaining agent does not require or otherwise merit the Board’s specialized expertise. The Board has articulated the standard under which disclaimers must be evaluated in a clear and consistent fashion, and application of that established standard requires no particular specialized expertise. (Basically saying that there is no basis for the NFL’s claim that decertification, or disclaimer, under the guidelines set by the NLRB)
- As the NFL correctly notes, “a union’s disclaimer of interest in collective bargaining is effective only if it was ‘unequivocal’ and ‘made in good faith.’” The NFL suggests that the Union’s disclaimer here, though, was made in bad faith because it was a “‘tactical maneuver’” or otherwise employed “‘only as a measure of momentary expedience, or strategy in bargaining.’” The NFL predicts that “the Board will undoubtedly recognize that the Union’s purported disclaimer is not motivated by a desire to abandon unionism permanently.”
- But there is no legal support for any requirement that a disclaimer be permanent. Employees have the right not only to organize as a union but also to refrain from such representation and, as relevant here, to “de-unionize.”
And here’s where I jizz my pants
- Moreover, this Court need not resolve the debate about whether their motive was influenced by the expectation of this litigation, because the NLRB’s General Counsel has addressed this question too. “[T]he fact that the disclaimer was motivated by ‘litigation strategy,’ i.e., to deprive the NFL of a defense to players’ antitrust suits and to free the players to engage in individual bargaining for free agency, is irrelevant so long as the disclaimer is otherwise unequivocal and adhered to.”