Is the CBA reciprocal?
If Goodell can accuse players and coaches of wrong doing and not have to provide evidence, can players and coaches accuse Goodell, the NFL, or others of wrong doings without evidence? How exactly is this CBA balanced or unbalanced in these matters?
Sure, it's just that players and coaches can't fine or suspend league officials. And the league can fine them for their complaints, depending on the situation -- for example, when a coach or player criticizes the officiating.
Is the CBA reciprocal?
If Goodell can accuse players and coaches of wrong doing and not have to provide evidence, can players and coaches accuse Goodell, the NFL, or others of wrong doings without evidence? How exactly is this CBA balanced or unbalanced in these matters?
The CBA has nothing to do with the coaches. But to understand the answer, you have to look at where the authority to "accuse of wrongdoing" (or at least to take action based on those accusations) comes from.
Both the CBA and the league's constitution/by-laws (which applies to the franchises) allow the league (acting through the Commissioner) to regulate and enforce rules and the catch-all "conduct detrimental to the league". The league, acting through the Commissioner, performs this role, in part, by investigating rules violations or violations of the conduct-deterimental' authority. If the league (acting through the Commissioner), in its discretion, believes that violations occurred, the league (acting through the Commissioner) may make accusations and issue discipline for those alleged violations.
In the relevant contracts (players contracts, coaches/executive contracts, franchise agreements) the players, coaches/executives, and teams agree to submit to this authority. Some of these agreements, including how this is handled in the CBA, provide for some minimal forms of due process - the most robust of which are in the CBA, which provides for appeal rights and arbitration.
So to your question "reciprocality" the answer is no. The Commissioner has certain policing authorities that the players and coaches don't have. And that makes sense - have you ever heard of a private organization or private workplace where the workers have a formal policing role over the top bosses? (And I'm not talking about recourse provided by law). The only authority over the Commissioner within the context and construct of the NFL is through the owners in the form of the processes provided in the league constitution and management activities.
But to answer your question of whether players and coaches can accuse Goodell of wrongdoing without evidence, sure they can. This is a free country - they can speak and tweet and write and file lawsuits all they want. (In other words, what GW93 said).
Is there a grievance process for defamation within the CBA?
The grievance process in the CBA includes disputes arising from the performance of the agreement. So there is a process by which a player could file a grievance alleging that the Commissioner has improperly carried out his duties. But it would not likely be treated the same as tort claim for defamation court - where the relevant legal standards would apply and damages could be awarded.
Neither Vilma nor any of the players ever filed a grievance based on Goodell's statements or on the deficiencies in the appeal process.
The CBA has nothing to do with the coaches. But to understand the answer, you have to look at where the authority to "accuse of wrongdoing" (or at least to take action based on those accusations) comes from.....
... have you ever heard of a private organization or private workplace where the workers have a formal policing role over the top bosses? (And I'm not talking about recourse provided by law).
I don't know about a formal role, but employees do have a right, if not an obligation, to 'blow the whistle' on top execs if they are engaged in policy violations or illegal activities. We have a system in place where I work that allows for complaints to be filed no matter who you are or who you are accusing. Fortunately I work at a place where that isn't even a concern, but it's there if needed.
I'm just wondering how vulnerable Goodell or other teams are to bogus accusations.
The CBA has nothing to do with the coaches. But to understand the answer, you have to look at where the authority to "accuse of wrongdoing" (or at least to take action based on those accusations) comes from.
Both the CBA and the league's constitution/by-laws (which applies to the franchises) allow the league (acting through the Commissioner) to regulate and enforce rules and the catch-all "conduct detrimental to the league". The league, acting through the Commissioner, performs this role, in part, by investigating rules violations or violations of the conduct-deterimental' authority. If the league (acting through the Commissioner), in its discretion, believes that violations occurred, the league (acting through the Commissioner) may make accusations and issue discipline for those alleged violations.
In the relevant contracts (players contracts, coaches/executive contracts, franchise agreements) the players, coaches/executives, and teams agree to submit to this authority. Some of these agreements, including how this is handled in the CBA, provide for some minimal forms of due process - the most robust of which are in the CBA, which provides for appeal rights and arbitration.
So to your question "reciprocality" the answer is no. The Commissioner has certain policing authorities that the players and coaches don't have. And that makes sense - have you ever heard of a private organization or private workplace where the workers have a formal policing role over the top bosses? (And I'm not talking about recourse provided by law). The only authority over the Commissioner within the context and construct of the NFL is through the owners in the form of the processes provided in the league constitution and management activities.
But to answer your question of whether players and coaches can accuse Goodell of wrongdoing without evidence, sure they can. This is a free country - they can speak and tweet and write and file lawsuits all they want. (In other words, what GW93 said).
__________________ Originally posted by Robinit at fail central:
Sam Baker, on the other hand has great potential, but has been hampered by his labia tear and will get one more chance to prove that he can hack it at this level.
I don't know about a formal role, but employees do have a right, if not an obligation, to 'blow the whistle' on top execs if they are engaged in policy violations or illegal activities. We have a system in place where I work that allows for complaints to be filed no matter who you are or who you are accusing. Fortunately I work at a place where that isn't even a concern, but it's there if needed.
I'm just wondering how vulnerable Goodell or other teams are to bogus accusations.
ps. for that reply.
Well I suppose NFL players have that too. There's a grievance process for policy violations and there's the authorities for illegal activities.
Well I suppose NFL players have that too. There's a grievance process for policy violations and there's the authorities for illegal activities.
There are some good examples of this where the players can call out the teams for violating practice restrictions such as two many practices in a day, lack of adequate hydration, too much contact, etc.
__________________ 2013 JETS Mock: Rd 1 (9) - Chance Warmack, OG, AL Rd 2 (39) - Jesse Williams, NT, AL Rd 3 (83) - Travis Kelce, TE, Cinc Rd 3 (89) - Montee Ball, RB, Wisconsin Rd 5 (141) - Michael Buchanan, OLB, Illinois Rd 5 (163) - Dwayne Gratz, FS/CB, UConn Rd 7 (215) - Adrian Bushell, CB, Louisville
My Day job - HR Software
The grievance process in the CBA includes disputes arising from the performance of the agreement. So there is a process by which a player could file a grievance alleging that the Commissioner has improperly carried out his duties. But it would not likely be treated the same as tort claim for defamation court - where the relevant legal standards would apply and damages could be awarded.
Neither Vilma nor any of the players ever filed a grievance based on Goodell's statements or on the deficiencies in the appeal process.
I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around this. If I don't belong to a union covered by a CBA and the CEO publicly stated that I put a hit out on a fellow employee, a statement which completely destroy my life and career, I have recourse via defamation lawsuit.
Now, if I belong to a union covered by a CBA and the CEO publicly stated that I put a hit out on a fellow employee, a statement which completely destroy my life and career, then my recourse is pre-empted by the CBA. Let say the CEO does nothing else, doesn't fire me, doesn't take away my salary. Nothing else. What recourse do I have then?
There were no punishment, so I can't file grievance against the punishment. I can file grievance against the CEO improperly carrying out his duty, but the CBA doesn't expressed what reliefs are available, so I'm out of luck? Or does that mean the CBA doesn't pre-empt this and I'm now allowed to pursue defamation outside of the CBA? Doesn't preemption means only those actions expressedly covered under the CBA are pre-empted and all other fall back to the state/federal laws?
To me, it just seems so unfair that an employer is allowed to make any statements without fear. That one can bargain away basic rights. That the glob of laws protecting me can be thrown to the wind under the guise of you get what you bargained for.
SuperChuck, can you just tell me if I'm way off base here.
I doubt there is a legal way to force Goodell to call off the coaches' suspensions if Vilma is granted his injunction and the players' suspensions are dropped, but could Goodell be forced to call off the coaches' suspensions if the media provides the pressure? Sort of a case of, "how can you suspend the coaches for something that might not have even happened yet?" If Vilma is cleared, then the coaches certainly can't be convicted for something that didn't happen - especially Sean Payton, who is only suspended because everything "happened" under his watch.
SuperChuck, can you just tell me if I'm way off base here.
I doubt there is a legal way to force Goodell to call off the coaches' suspensions if Vilma is granted his injunction and the players' suspensions are dropped, but could Goodell be forced to call off the coaches' suspensions if the media provides the pressure? Sort of a case of, "how can you suspend the coaches for something that might not have even happened yet?" If Vilma is cleared, then the coaches certainly can't be convicted for something that didn't happen - especially Sean Payton, who is only suspended because everything "happened" under his watch.
Thanks for whatever input you can offer.
Nobody can force Goodell to do anything except the owners. Could there be pressure from the media or the public (or even a few owners) to cause Goodell to re-think the punishment? Sure, that's possible.
Well, I think this alledge bounty issue actually exposed a flaw in the CBA, where Goodell is given absolute power over team and player legal activities.
I mean if Goodell cannot be punished for his illegal actions that even violated the CBA then what's to stop him from turning around and saying instead of suspending Vilma, and Payton for 1 season, he decides to ban them from working in the NFL, definitely. There needs to be some kind of checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening again. Then again maybe the route that Vilma is taking such as system.
__________________
Who Dat!!!... I'm Dat... Dat Saints Fan.
I still don't understand the preemption of the CBA with regard to defamation.
Let's say Vilma, in trying to defend against his suspension, issued public statements that Goodell put hits on the players and that Goodell raped and sodomized many a players, and repeated this numerous time via mass media interviews, and again during all the hearings.
If he did this in the regular court of laws, he's in big trouble. Heck, he would need to represent himself because no lawyers would be caught within a million miles of him.
But within the CBA, he need not fear any retribution???
for that reply.
Linear Mode
