Question: National Football League Players Association v. Pro Football, Inc. 857 F. Supp. 71 (D.D.C. 1994)
The NFL Players Association (NFLPA) brought suit to force the Redskins' management and Management Council to enforce an arbitrator's award requiring them to suspend Redskin team players who did not pay their union dues. The court had to determine whether the arbitrator's decision was enforceable, and that depended on the location of the players' predominant place of work: the place where the players primarily practiced-Virginia, which is a right-to-work state-or the place where they played most of their games-Washington, DC, which is not. The court held that the primary site was Virginia, where the players practiced, and since that is a right-to-work state, the nonunion players were not required to pay dues to the union.
Hogan, J.
NFLPA and the NFL Management Council signed a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") on May 6, 1993, that governs the employment of professional football players. In executing the CBA, the NFLPA acted as the sole and exclusive representative of the individuals who play football for NFL teams and the Management Council acted as the sole and exclusive representative of the NFL teams that employ these football players. Article V of the agreement contains a standard agency shop provision that requires NFL players to pay union dues or an equivalent service fee within 30 days of employment. The agreement states that this provision is applicable "wherever and whenever legal." If, after written notification to the NFL Management Council that a player has not paid the proper fees, the matter is not resolved within seven days, the agreement indicates that the player should be suspended without pay.
Additionally, Article V states that "[a]ny dispute over compliance with, or the interpretation, application or administration of this Article" will be resolved through arbitration. The resulting arbitration decision "will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the dispute, and will be binding on the player(s) and Club(s) involved and the parties to this agreement." Although § 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), permits employers to establish agency shops, § 14(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 164(b), allows states and territories to exempt themselves from § 8(a)(3) by enacting laws prohibiting agency shops. Such laws are commonly referred to as right-to-work laws. Virginia has enacted such a law. The arbitrator ordered the Redskins to comply with the agreement and to suspend players who failed to pay their dues or fees.
Interpreting the Supreme Court's decision in Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers, International Union v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407 (1976), the arbitrator found that the District of Columbia, not Virginia, was the players' predominant job situs because the Redskins play more games there (at RFK stadium) than anywhere else. Although the players spend the majority of their time practicing in Virginia, the arbitrator found that the team's games are the "raison d'etre" of the players' employment and produce the team's revenues. The arbitrator also relied on the fact that players' compensation is related to the number of games for which they appear on the Redskins roster. Therefore, the arbitrator issued an award that required the Redskins to suspend any players who failed to pay the proper fees. It is true that the Redskins would not exist if the team did not play its games in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.
The team's revenue comes primarily from playing games, not practicing. However, to adopt an economic-based raison d'etre test would potentially create difficulties in application. Professional athletes, musicians, actors, and others who may spend most of their time in one place practicing, but earn their revenue based upon a limited number of performances, would face the possibility that the application of agency shop provisions may vary from year to year depending on the location of their performances in a given year. Further, the Redskins themselves may be presented with situations where players are under contract but do not play in the District of Columbia at all because of injuries or some other concerns. If a player does not participate in a single game in the District of Columbia (e.g.-Terry Orr), the player could possibly be subject to Virginia's right-to-work laws, because the raison d'etre would be different. This could create the anomalous situation in which players on the same team would be covered by the labor laws of different jurisdictions. This is not the type of situation envisioned by the Supreme Court when it adopted the job situs test.
The Court's primary concern must be with predictability. The NFLPA may have some legitimate equitable arguments about the financial significance of the games that are played in the District of Columbia, as opposed to the practices that occur in Virginia. Nevertheless, when the Redskins players get up in the morning to go to work, they usually go to Redskins Park, not RFK stadium. Practices, conditioning, and meetings are an integral part of game preparation. Since the players spend most of their time working in Virginia, Mobil Oil indicates that Virginia law should apply to them. Regardless of the intuitive appeal of the arbitrator's decision, it does not conform with the current state of the law. Carving out exceptions to Mobil Oil for the Redskins (and eventually others) would limit the predictability and usefulness of Mobil Oil. Because the arbitrator in this case clearly erred in interpreting Mobil Oil, he placed the Redskins in the unenviable position of being ordered to violate the law and public policy of Virginia.
Although the Court is ordinarily quite reluctant to act as a Monday morning quarterback and second-guess an arbitrator, public policy mandates that the Court step in and act in this particular case. The Court finds that the arbitrator's decision violated the law and public policy of Virginia and therefore cannot stand. Thus, although the team has struggled recently on the gridiron, the Redskins have won a surprising come-frombehind victory here in the judicial arena. DISMISSED.
1. Do you agree with the court's decision about where the Redskins' main place of business is? located Explain.
2. What do you think of the right-to-work laws? Discuss.
3. As a manager, what are the advantages and disadvantages of being in a right-to-work state? Explain.