View Single Post
11-20-2012, 03:15 PM
Erik Estrada
Registered User
Erik Estrada's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Brown v NFL seems to set a precedent that the NHL would be largely immune to anti-trust claims for some period before and following the determination of an impasse, though the ruling doesn't establish specific time boundaries. It was interesting that anti-trust lawsuits were still brought by players in the NFL and NBA cases in spite of that ruling, though none were resolved in court.

Brown v NFL is an interesting read for those inclined to court rulings.
the United States Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in Brown v. Pro Football,
Inc.,11 a union wishing to pursue an antitrust claim against management
cannot escape the strictures of the non-statutory exemption until its labor
dispute is “sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances from the
collective-bargaining process.”12

This standard has subsequently been
interpreted to require that employees dissolve their union—and thereby
completely forgo all of the benefits accorded to them under labor law—
before pursuing an antitrust claim against management.13
(See, e.g., Michael C. Harper, Multiemployer Bargaining, Antitrust Law, and Team
Sports: The Contingent Choice of a Broad Exemption, 38 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1663,
1722 (1997) (“professional team sport athletes . . . can still free themselves to bring
antitrust challenges to league-imposed labor market restraints by decertifying their union and thereby eliminating any collective bargaining process with which antitrust challenges could interfere.”); Eric D. Scheible, Note: o Runs. o Hits. One Error: Eliminating Major League Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption Will ot Save the Game, 73 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 73, 99 (1995) (finding that Brown implies that employees must either forgo unionization or decertify an existing union before pursuing any potential antitrust remedies against management). "

Erik Estrada is offline