The Supreme Court rendered an interesting decision in a case where an employer sued a local union for alleged violations of the no strike provisions of a collective bargaining agreement and an international union for tortious interference with the CBA. The local union claimed there was no violation of the CBA because it was not ratified as of the time of the alleged violation of the no strike clause. The 7 member majority opinion (Thomas) held the ratification date issue was one for a court to decide, rather than an arbitrator. A unanimous court refused to extend "federal common law" to include tortious interference with a contract  as a claim cognizable under LMRA § 301. But the really interesting part is after the jump.

The majority opinion seems straight forward. The arbitration clause covered all disputes "arising under" the CBA. The Court's majority notes there is no CBA until ratification. The union asserted the ratification occurred after the actions complained of by the employer, and that as a result the no strike clause did not bar the strike. The Court's majority found the issue of whether ratification occurred was one of formation of the agreement, thus subject to judicial determination. The dissent (Sotomayor) persuasively notes that it is undisputed that the parties reached a binding agreement in December of 2004, which by its terms was made retroactive to the May 2004 expiration of the prior agreement. The dispute surely "arises under" the CBA. The employer consistently argued the case involved a formation dispute, and the union failed to raise its counter argument until its merits brief.

The NFLPA is passing out cards to players setting the stage to request a vote on decertifying the union as the collective bargaining representative of the players. Rumor has it the Saints have unanimously voted for decertification. It is most unusual for a labor organization to seek to destroy its right to bargain for a group of employees it represents. But in this case NFLPA seems to think decertification is a defense against a potential lockout by owners when the current collective bargaining agreement expires in March. More after the jump.

There is a federal anti-trust exemption woven into enforcement under the National Labor Relations Act. Essentially this would permit ownership to act concertedly to lockout the players under the guise that the lock out is condoned by the NLRA. But in the absence of collective bargaining obligations, the players (or more accurately their legal representatives) believe the owners could not lock them all out. This makes for a very interesting labor law issue, and is the third involving the NFL in the past year.

The first labor law issue is the Minnesota case involving Star Caps and a Minnesota state statute protecting employees from discipline as a result of off-duty conduct. Our previous posts are here and here.

The second is the issue arising in the American Needle case, previously blogged about here. In American Needle in which a unanimous Supreme Court found the NFL's various teams were not a single entity for purposes of anti-trust analysis.

Saint's quarterback Drew Brees is an outspoken member of the NFLPA Executive Committee.