Franchise Tag and No CBA (1 Viewer)

[Chadstroma]

I am confused on how teams can place franchise tags, etc when there is no CBA. Isn't the franchise tag and the like a product of the past CBA's?

 

[Yellow Line is Unoffcial]

I am confused on how teams can place franchise tags, etc when there is no CBA. Isn't the franchise tag and the like a product of the past CBA's?

There is a CBA until 12:00 AM 3/04/2011

 

[David Yudkin]

By the current CBA, if teams wish to use their franchise and transition tags, they have to do so BEFORE the roll over to the next NFL season. Those are the current rules, and if they don't do that, the players in question would automatically become UFAs at the start of the next calendar year.

However, the new CBA may not include franchise or transition tags, at which point the players would likely become UFAs anyway. At this point, the teams are obviously saying that the same rules will apply heading forward. The players are saying that they don't believe the tags will be available and thus don't feel that they will stick.

At the moment, I don't think anyone knows what lies on the other side of football once there is another CBA.

 

[Chadstroma]

By the current CBA, if teams wish to use their franchise and transition tags, they have to do so BEFORE the roll over to the next NFL season. Those are the current rules, and if they don't do that, the players in question would automatically become UFAs at the start of the next calendar year.However, the new CBA may not include franchise or transition tags, at which point the players would likely become UFAs anyway. At this point, the teams are obviously saying that the same rules will apply heading forward. The players are saying that they don't believe the tags will be available and thus don't feel that they will stick.At the moment, I don't think anyone knows what lies on the other side of football once there is another CBA.

So, when it expires there really is no franchise tag until the new CBA is formed but if all teams just continue to act like the previous CBA is in effect then they simply won't sign anyone that is tagged. Is it possible to sign a player when there is no CBA? I mean, would that contract stand when the new one is in place?

 

[Rockchild]

By the current CBA, if teams wish to use their franchise and transition tags, they have to do so BEFORE the roll over to the next NFL season. Those are the current rules, and if they don't do that, the players in question would automatically become UFAs at the start of the next calendar year.

However, the new CBA may not include franchise or transition tags, at which point the players would likely become UFAs anyway. At this point, the teams are obviously saying that the same rules will apply heading forward. The players are saying that they don't believe the tags will be available and thus don't feel that they will stick.

At the moment, I don't think anyone knows what lies on the other side of football once there is another CBA.

So, when it expires there really is no franchise tag until the new CBA is formed but if all teams just continue to act like the previous CBA is in effect then they simply won't sign anyone that is tagged. Is it possible to sign a player when there is no CBA? I mean, would that contract stand when the new one is in place?

I think this would be one of the issues the players would challenge if they do decertify and I would think they would eventually win.

 

[David Yudkin]

By the current CBA, if teams wish to use their franchise and transition tags, they have to do so BEFORE the roll over to the next NFL season. Those are the current rules, and if they don't do that, the players in question would automatically become UFAs at the start of the next calendar year.However, the new CBA may not include franchise or transition tags, at which point the players would likely become UFAs anyway. At this point, the teams are obviously saying that the same rules will apply heading forward. The players are saying that they don't believe the tags will be available and thus don't feel that they will stick.At the moment, I don't think anyone knows what lies on the other side of football once there is another CBA.

So, when it expires there really is no franchise tag until the new CBA is formed but if all teams just continue to act like the previous CBA is in effect then they simply won't sign anyone that is tagged. Is it possible to sign a player when there is no CBA? I mean, would that contract stand when the new one is in place?

It is my understanding that free agents will not be allowed to sign with a new team without a new CBA. I do not know if players can sign extensions without one.Another wrinkle is that teams cannot trade players for draft picks without a CBA. Given that it is past the trading deadline for the 2010 season, that means that teams cannot trade players for picks for the 2011 draft unless there is a new CBA in place before the draft in April.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So, when it expires there really is no franchise tag until the new CBA is formed but if all teams just continue to act like the previous CBA is in effect then they simply won't sign anyone that is tagged.

There is a franchise tag until something happens to eliminate it. If a new CBA says there's no franchise tag, then there's no franchise tag. If there's no new CBA and there's an impasse in the bargaining negotiations, and the owners unilaterally decide to do away with the franchise tag, then there's no franchise tag. If there's no new CBA and the players decertify their union and successfully challenge the franchise tag in court on antitrust grounds (or the owners unilaterally eliminate it), then there's no franchise tag.If there's no new CBA, no impasse, no decertification, and no strike or lockout, then the rules from 2010 will govern until one of those other things does happen. It's conceivable that the 2011 season could be played with no new CBA using the rules from the 2010 season, which would include a franchise tag. (That's an unlikely scenario, however, as either a lockout by the owners or a decertification by the union seems more probable.)That's my understanding based on stuff I read a while ago, but I'm not a labor law expert.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

When the CBA expires, all rules there in expire, thus voiding the franchise tags. But without a CBA and a full understanding of how these issues will be addressed in the new CBA, I doubt any team will spend alot of effort going after players that might be contractually bound to the franchise tags as per new negotiated ruling in the new CBA.

The new CBA will address the tags and existing tagged players. If the players stand strong against the tags, I imagine it would be a sticking point for the teams. If the players want to play ball, they may just have to let the tags carry over.

But without a CBA in place, they are not held to the rules in the expired agreement. The reason for an expiration date, was for the agreement to be renegotiated. It's basically a contract, that has run thru it's expiration date. And unless there was wording in the contract that stipulated certain rules would outlive the expiration date, all rules die with the expiration date.

Wasn't it the owners that decided not to extend the CBA another season? They certainly couldn't expect the players to follow rules from an agreement that they opted out of....

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So, when it expires there really is no franchise tag until the new CBA is formed but if all teams just continue to act like the previous CBA is in effect then they simply won't sign anyone that is tagged.

There is a franchise tag until something happens to eliminate it. If a new CBA says there's no franchise tag, then there's no franchise tag. If there's no new CBA and there's an impasse in the bargaining negotiations, and the owners unilaterally decide to do away with the franchise tag, then there's no franchise tag. If there's no new CBA and the players decertify their union and successfully challenge the franchise tag in court on antitrust grounds (or the owners unilaterally eliminate it), then there's no franchise tag.If there's no new CBA, no impasse, no decertification, and no strike or lockout, then the rules from 2010 will govern until one of those other things does happen. It's conceivable that the 2011 season could be played with no new CBA using the rules from the 2010 season, which would include a franchise tag. (That's an unlikely scenario, however, as either a lockout by the owners or a decertification by the union seems more probable.)

That's my understanding based on stuff I read a while ago, but I'm not a labor law expert.

Unless there was wording in the previous agreement that extended the tags past the expiration date of the CBA, then the "something" that happened to eliminate it, was the expiration of the agreement. If the teams can expect players to follow that rule after the agreement has expired, then the players can expect teams to follow the rules that favor them as well.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But without a CBA in place, they are not held to the rules in the expired agreement.

I believe they are. I believe it's called the status quo doctrine. See the section on "Unilateral Changes" here. It says: "Even after the collective bargaining agreement expires, the employer must maintain the status quo and may not unilaterally change mandatory subjects of bargaining, until the parties have reached an impasse." That is consistent with my understanding: when a collective bargaining agreement expires, the terms from its final year continue to govern until a new CBA is reached, or until there's an impasse in the negotiations and the employer unilaterally changes those terms.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the teams can expect players to follow that rule after the agreement has expired, then the players can expect teams to follow the rules that favor them as well.

Yes, that's the law as I understand it.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But without a CBA in place, they are not held to the rules in the expired agreement.

I believe they are. I believe it's called the status quo doctrine. See the section on "Unilateral Changes" here. It says: "Even after the collective bargaining agreement expires, the employer must maintain the status quo and may not unilaterally change mandatory subjects of bargaining, until the parties have reached an impasse." That is consistent with my understanding: when a collective bargaining agreement expires, the terms from its final year continue to govern until a new CBA is reached, or until there's an impasse in the negotiations and the employer unilaterally changes those terms.

So, no chance of a lockout then?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But without a CBA in place, they are not held to the rules in the expired agreement.

I believe they are. I believe it's called the status quo doctrine. See the section on "Unilateral Changes" here. It says: "Even after the collective bargaining agreement expires, the employer must maintain the status quo and may not unilaterally change mandatory subjects of bargaining, until the parties have reached an impasse." That is consistent with my understanding: when a collective bargaining agreement expires, the terms from its final year continue to govern until a new CBA is reached, or until there's an impasse in the negotiations and the employer unilaterally changes those terms.

I believe you are quoting content that binds the Employer, not the Employee... Seems to be based around creating unfair labor practices. But I couldn't be sure on that.In the same doc you're quoting it says:

"Once good faith negotiations between the parties "exhaust the prospect of concluding agreement," the parties have reached an impasse, and implementing unilateral changes in working conditions does not constitute an unfair labor practice"

So, if there is a stand off, or threat to lock out, wouldn't that indicate an impasse?

 

[skillz]

But without a CBA in place, they are not held to the rules in the expired agreement.

I believe they are. I believe it's called the status quo doctrine. See the section on "Unilateral Changes" here. It says: "Even after the collective bargaining agreement expires, the employer must maintain the status quo and may not unilaterally change mandatory subjects of bargaining, until the parties have reached an impasse." That is consistent with my understanding: when a collective bargaining agreement expires, the terms from its final year continue to govern until a new CBA is reached, or until there's an impasse in the negotiations and the employer unilaterally changes those terms.

I believe you are quoting content that binds the Employer, not the Employee... Seems to be based around creating unfair labor practices. But I couldn't be sure on that.In the same doc you're quoting it says:

"Once good faith negotiations between the parties "exhaust the prospect of concluding agreement," the parties have reached an impasse, and implementing unilateral changes in working conditions does not constitute an unfair labor practice"

So, if there is a stand off, or threat to lock out, wouldn't that indicate an impasse?

Under the National Labor Relations Act both parties to the CBA must maintain the status quo ante until they reach a new CBA, or the employer declares a valid impasse and unilaterally implements its last, best and final offer. The mere fact that the owners may lock out the players on March 4 doeesn't mean that the parties have reached impasse - a lockout or strike is merely a tool to gain leverage during negotiations. Impasse is determined by the progress of bargaining and whether the parties reach a gridlock/stalemate where neither wants to move off their bargaining position. They are certainly getting closer to impasse and typically if a mediator can't produce an agreement the employer is more likely to declare an impasse and unilaterally implement. So, long story, once the CBA expires the rules of the CBA apply until a new agreement is reached, or the owners take the step of declaring impasse and unilaterally implenting their last, best, final offer (whatever that offer may be). The union will then likely file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging the owners bargained in bad faith, prematurely declared an impasse and the mess will continue... in reality neither side wants to get to impasse - there would be no final CBA yet, and litigation before the NLRB is highly likely to ensue which isn't going to help the parties work together towards a new CBA.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But without a CBA in place, they are not held to the rules in the expired agreement.

I believe they are. I believe it's called the status quo doctrine. See the section on "Unilateral Changes" here. It says: "Even after the collective bargaining agreement expires, the employer must maintain the status quo and may not unilaterally change mandatory subjects of bargaining, until the parties have reached an impasse." That is consistent with my understanding: when a collective bargaining agreement expires, the terms from its final year continue to govern until a new CBA is reached, or until there's an impasse in the negotiations and the employer unilaterally changes those terms.

So, no chance of a lockout then?

See post #7 in this thread.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But without a CBA in place, they are not held to the rules in the expired agreement.

I believe they are. I believe it's called the status quo doctrine. See the section on "Unilateral Changes" here. It says: "Even after the collective bargaining agreement expires, the employer must maintain the status quo and may not unilaterally change mandatory subjects of bargaining, until the parties have reached an impasse." That is consistent with my understanding: when a collective bargaining agreement expires, the terms from its final year continue to govern until a new CBA is reached, or until there's an impasse in the negotiations and the employer unilaterally changes those terms.

So, no chance of a lockout then?

See post #7 in this thread.

If there is a lockout, the owners would then be operating outside of the current CBA, voiding the CBA and any implied rules that bridge the gap.. I'm saying, if there is a lockout, all tags are invalid. Unless provisions were made in the new CBA to transfer.

 

[skillz]

But without a CBA in place, they are not held to the rules in the expired agreement.

I believe they are. I believe it's called the status quo doctrine. See the section on "Unilateral Changes" here. It says: "Even after the collective bargaining agreement expires, the employer must maintain the status quo and may not unilaterally change mandatory subjects of bargaining, until the parties have reached an impasse." That is consistent with my understanding: when a collective bargaining agreement expires, the terms from its final year continue to govern until a new CBA is reached, or until there's an impasse in the negotiations and the employer unilaterally changes those terms.

So, no chance of a lockout then?

See post #7 in this thread.

If there is a lockout, the owners would then be operating outside of the current CBA, voiding the CBA and any implied rules that bridge the gap.. I'm saying, if there is a lockout, all tags are invalid. Unless provisions were made in the new CBA to transfer.

This is not correct. If they opt out the CBA expires. But the terms are still in effect unless there is a new CBA or an impasse is declared. CBAs expire all the time in the real world and the terms remain in effect while the parties negotiate a successor CBA. NFL is no different since it is subject to the National Labor Relations Act just like other private sector employers.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This is not correct. If they opt out the CBA expires. But the terms are still in effect unless there is a new CBA or an impasse is declared. CBAs expire all the time in the real world and the terms remain in effect while the parties negotiate a successor CBA. NFL is no different since it is subject to the National Labor Relations Act just like other private sector employers.

A lockout would be outside of the terms of the current CBA, if the owners lock out the players, they are at an impasse, and they are no longer following the terms of the current CBA, if they are no longer following the terms of the current CBA, the players don't have to either.. Tags voided, unless negotiated back in later on...

 

[skillz]

This is not correct. If they opt out the CBA expires. But the terms are still in effect unless there is a new CBA or an impasse is declared. CBAs expire all the time in the real world and the terms remain in effect while the parties negotiate a successor CBA. NFL is no different since it is subject to the National Labor Relations Act just like other private sector employers.

A lockout would be outside of the terms of the current CBA, if the owners lock out the players, they are at an impasse, and they are no longer following the terms of the current CBA, if they are no longer following the terms of the current CBA, the players don't have to either.. Tags voided, unless negotiated back in later on...

1. Owners opt out of CBA. 2. Once CBA is opted out of it has expired so there is no longer a prohibition on locking out the players so they are not "acting outside of the CBA." Likewise, players could strike if they wanted to but obviously will not.3. Locking out the players is not an impasse. Locking out is a bargaining tool to get a better deal. The owners still have to negotiate to an impasse before making any unilateral changes regardless of whether a lockout occurs or not.So the tags aren't going to be voided via a lockout or simply opting out of the CBA.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This is not correct. If they opt out the CBA expires. But the terms are still in effect unless there is a new CBA or an impasse is declared. CBAs expire all the time in the real world and the terms remain in effect while the parties negotiate a successor CBA. NFL is no different since it is subject to the National Labor Relations Act just like other private sector employers.

A lockout would be outside of the terms of the current CBA, if the owners lock out the players, they are at an impasse, and they are no longer following the terms of the current CBA, if they are no longer following the terms of the current CBA, the players don't have to either.. Tags voided, unless negotiated back in later on...

1. Owners opt out of CBA. 2. Once CBA is opted out of it has expired so there is no longer a prohibition on locking out the players so they are not "acting outside of the CBA." Likewise, players could strike if they wanted to but obviously will not.3. Locking out the players is not an impasse. Locking out is a bargaining tool to get a better deal. The owners still have to negotiate to an impasse before making any unilateral changes regardless of whether a lockout occurs or not.So the tags aren't going to be voided via a lockout or simply opting out of the CBA.

In order for the players to be bound to the tags, the owners have to follow the terms of the CBA, if they lockout, they are not following the terms of the CBA..So you're trying to tell me, the owners can lock out the players, so they can't work, and then also keep them from working elsewhere.... Pretty sure you're wrong there..

 

[skillz]

This is not correct. If they opt out the CBA expires. But the terms are still in effect unless there is a new CBA or an impasse is declared. CBAs expire all the time in the real world and the terms remain in effect while the parties negotiate a successor CBA. NFL is no different since it is subject to the National Labor Relations Act just like other private sector employers.

A lockout would be outside of the terms of the current CBA, if the owners lock out the players, they are at an impasse, and they are no longer following the terms of the current CBA, if they are no longer following the terms of the current CBA, the players don't have to either.. Tags voided, unless negotiated back in later on...

1. Owners opt out of CBA. 2. Once CBA is opted out of it has expired so there is no longer a prohibition on locking out the players so they are not "acting outside of the CBA." Likewise, players could strike if they wanted to but obviously will not.3. Locking out the players is not an impasse. Locking out is a bargaining tool to get a better deal. The owners still have to negotiate to an impasse before making any unilateral changes regardless of whether a lockout occurs or not.So the tags aren't going to be voided via a lockout or simply opting out of the CBA.

In order for the players to be bound to the tags, the owners have to follow the terms of the CBA, if they lockout, they are not following the terms of the CBA..So you're trying to tell me, the owners can lock out the players, so they can't work, and then also keep them from working elsewhere.... Pretty sure you're wrong there..

Owners will not violate CBA if they lockout after they opt out on March 4. The No Strike/No Lockout clause states that there can't be a strike or lockout during the term of the CBA. If the owners opt out then they are no longer within the term of the CBA and the owners are free to lockout. Interestingly, as much as the owners have threatened to lockout upon opting out of the CBA, the union has never once stated as you are now claiming the owners would be violating the terms of the CBA if they did so. Also, where did I say the players can't work elsewhere? If someone isn't under contract to an NFL team and wants to go play in the UFL next year that's their choice. (Players under contract to their team that's a different story). Anyway, I am just saying the rules, such as the franchise tag, that are negotiated by both the union and owners stay in place until there is a new CBA or impasse. That's what the NLRA dictates - it's premised upon collective bargaining resolving labor problems. As a practical matter even if the tags did drop off, none of the owners are going to sign a single player until a new CBA is reached and the economics are clarified (revenue sharing, amount of salary cap, whether franchise tags will exist, rookie salary cap, etc.). Just so you know, I've practiced traditional labor law for over 10 years in Michigan. Negotiated with the UAW, Teamsters, etc. I am just trying to explain in this thread how federal labor law fits into the NFL labor negotiations since the original poster asked the question. If you want to believe things operate differently than what I have stated so be it. I just disagree with the accuracy of your posts.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This is not correct. If they opt out the CBA expires. But the terms are still in effect unless there is a new CBA or an impasse is declared. CBAs expire all the time in the real world and the terms remain in effect while the parties negotiate a successor CBA. NFL is no different since it is subject to the National Labor Relations Act just like other private sector employers.

A lockout would be outside of the terms of the current CBA, if the owners lock out the players, they are at an impasse, and they are no longer following the terms of the current CBA, if they are no longer following the terms of the current CBA, the players don't have to either.. Tags voided, unless negotiated back in later on...

1. Owners opt out of CBA. 2. Once CBA is opted out of it has expired so there is no longer a prohibition on locking out the players so they are not "acting outside of the CBA." Likewise, players could strike if they wanted to but obviously will not.

3. Locking out the players is not an impasse. Locking out is a bargaining tool to get a better deal. The owners still have to negotiate to an impasse before making any unilateral changes regardless of whether a lockout occurs or not.

So the tags aren't going to be voided via a lockout or simply opting out of the CBA.

In order for the players to be bound to the tags, the owners have to follow the terms of the CBA, if they lockout, they are not following the terms of the CBA..

So you're trying to tell me, the owners can lock out the players, so they can't work, and then also keep them from working elsewhere.... Pretty sure you're wrong there..

Owners will not violate CBA if they lockout after they opt out on March 4. The No Strike/No Lockout clause states that there can't be a strike or lockout during the term of the CBA. If the owners opt out then they are no longer within the term of the CBA and the owners are free to lockout. Interestingly, as much as the owners have threatened to lockout upon opting out of the CBA, the union has never once stated as you are now claiming the owners would be violating the terms of the CBA if they did so. Also, where did I say the players can't work elsewhere? If someone isn't under contract to an NFL team and wants to go play in the UFL next year that's their choice. (Players under contract to their team that's a different story).

Anyway, I am just saying the rules, such as the franchise tag, that are negotiated by both the union and owners stay in place until there is a new CBA or impasse. That's what the NLRA dictates - it's premised upon collective bargaining resolving labor problems. As a practical matter even if the tags did drop off, none of the owners are going to sign a single player until a new CBA is reached and the economics are clarified (revenue sharing, amount of salary cap, whether franchise tags will exist, rookie salary cap, etc.).

Just so you know, I've practiced traditional labor law for over 10 years in Michigan. Negotiated with the UAW, Teamsters, etc. I am just trying to explain in this thread how federal labor law fits into the NFL labor negotiations since the original poster asked the question. If you want to believe things operate differently than what I have stated so be it. I just disagree with the accuracy of your posts.

In what capacity? You're 35.. In terms of practicing law, even if you jumped into college right after highschool, took only 7 years to land a degree/pass the bar, and landing a job where you're actually working cases and representing right after college, which isn't impossible, but not often likely and what it would take for you to be practicing law for the last 10 years, you're still wet behind the ears.. No offense intended there. There are plenty of lawyers older than you that crack books and consult senior members of there firm's on a daily basis in order to answer questions like these.And Franchise tags aren't a part of traditional labor laws, The closest thing I can relate it to is a no compete clause. These NFL contracts and Unions aren't even anywhere close to traditional.

After a lockout, without a new CBA, it's a moot point, because without a CBA, there is likely no NFL.. BUT, without a CBA after lockout, there are no franchise tags.

If the owners have the capasity to opt out and not be held to the terms of a no lockout clause, then the players would no longer be bound to the terms of the CBA either.

It would take a new CBA, and terms addressing the previous CBA's franchise tags, to bind the players to current franchise tags. Because without a new CBA, there is no NFL, and until there is a new CBA, the owners aren't going to act on anything that could undermine their negotiations on the new agreement.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Carolina Hustler, you're mistaken about this. When the CBA expires, the no-strike and no-lockout terms are lifted, but the terms governing wages, hours, and other working conditions are not lifted. They must remain in place — as the status quo — until there's a new CBA or until there's a bona fide impasse in the negotiations.

skillz knows what he's talking about.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Carolina Hustler, you're mistaken about this. When the CBA expires, the no-strike and no-lockout terms are lifted, but the terms governing wages, hours, and other working conditions are not lifted. They must remain in place — as the status quo — until there's a new CBA or until there's a bona fide impasse in the negotiations.skillz knows what he's talking about.

We're talking about a contract forbidding a player to play elsewhere, not about wages or hours... It's a hybrid non-compete.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"Our position is that you can franchise anyone you want, by whatever date you want, but if there is no CBA, the franchise tags will be meaningless," NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith

Owners are using the franchise tags in anticipation that they will be addressed in the new CBA. The only way these tags can stick would be for the new CBA to address them. There will also be a set of rules that govern the tags. These rules will likely look similar to the previous set of rules. That is the reason they imposed a deadline for using the tags. To follow the assumed set of rules.

 

[Insomniac]

If the owners declare an impasse can the players play the regular season games and then go on strike for the playoffs?

 

[Orange Crush]

If the owners declare an impasse can the players play the regular season games and then go on strike for the playoffs?

If owners declare an impasse, that means that they can impose their "last, best offer" onto the players. At that time, the players can either decertify, strike, or surrender. If they choose to strike, they can choose to do it whenever they want, including just for the playoffs. It would be a hugely negative public relations move, and so is very doubtful they actually do it. But the threat of it may have some marginal use in negotiations with the owners before impasse, which is why you occasionally see it discussed.

 

[Chadstroma]

I know the players do not like the franchise tag, transition tag, etc but I have not seen anything that suggests that that is one of the things that they are trying to get rid of. Has anyone seen anything differently?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I know the players do not like the franchise tag, transition tag, etc but I have not seen anything that suggests that that is one of the things that they are trying to get rid of. Has anyone seen anything differently?

I did somewhere, but I doubt the tags are a sticking point for the players. I'm sure they'll give and tagging will continue.