NFL players: Lockout causing 'irreparable harm'

[MauiRam]

From The Redzone
3/29/2011 6:00:08 AM


NFL players are defending their decision to disband the union, saying employers cannot force workers to unionize, and dissolution is "not akin to turning off a light switch," according to the Associated Press

The players made the statements Monday in a court document filed in response to the NFL's assertion decertification was "a sham."

"It is established law that a union can renounce collective bargaining to enable its workers to protect themselves from antitrust violations," lawyers for the players wrote in the filing.

Lawyers for Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and six other NFL players are asking a federal judge to halt a lockout imposed by owners, saying an injunction is needed to "stop the irreparable harm being inflicted today." A hearing on the issue is scheduled for April 6 in St. Paul, Minn.

The players say that prior court decisions have made it clear the right of workers not to unionize is absolute. The players disclaimed their union, gave up the right to strike, to collectively bargain and to have union representation.

"The players sacrificed these labor law rights for one reason: to gain the ability to assert antitrust claims against anticompetitive restrictions imposed by defendants," lawyers for the players argued on Monday.

[AvengerRam]

The term "irreparable harm" is a standard legal term. A party seeking an injunction must prove that there will be irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.

[Nick]

Having a resident lawyer here at the Clan makes following this story much easier! Thanks, Av!

[Goldenfleece]

It seems like it would be very difficult for them to make an argument that would meet such a high threshold. I would assume that "irreparable harm" probably comes into effect if say an environmental case could wind up wiping out an endangered species or if allowing one company to continue to market a product that appeared to violate copyright laws could force the copyright owner into bankruptcy while the case was being heard or something along those lines.

Given that the loss to the NFL players is solely economic, they knew it was a strong possibility at least a year in advance, even the players making the veterans' minimum earn six figures, and the Players' Association set up an emergency fund, I don't see how they could make the case that they would irreparably harmed...unless they're trying to make some kind of convoluted case that the marketability of their personal brands would be irreparably tarnished.