NFL brief argues for continued lockout

Attorneys for the NFL Monday submitted a 49-page brief to U.S. District Court in Minnesota outlining reasons why the lockout should continue despite a request for an injunction filed by 10 players that would force the league to resume operations.

The league argues that the lockout should not end because of the injunction request, which the players filed in conjunction with antitrust litigation against the NFL.

"Plaintiffs seek an injunction under the Sherman Act prohibiting the NFL's member clubs from imposing a lockout that is unquestionably lawful and permitted by federal labor law," the introduction to the league's brief begins. It then claims that the decertification of the NFL Players Association, which occurred after negotiations broke down March 11, was a sham and a negotiating tactic that should not be permitted.

NFLPA attorneys are required to file a brief by Monday outlining their reasons why the injunction should be granted and why the league should be forced to end the lockout. The case will be heard April 6 in Minneapolis before Judge Susan Nelson, with a final decision expected within one or two weeks.

The league argued that a federal statute called the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents U.S. District Court in Minnesota from intervening in the dispute. The league argues that the statute prevents any court from issuing an injunction against a lockout.

The league claims that a case before the National Labor Relations Board, in which the NFL claims the players' union bargained in bad faith, might go against the union, and therefore should result in a continuation of the lockout.

"The NLRB is now considering whether the union has purported to disclaim in order to gain a tactical bargaining advantage, rather than disclaiming unequivocally and in good faith, as the federal labor laws require," according to a league-issued statement. "If the Board finds such a violation, it will issue an order requiring the union to return to the collective bargaining table. Under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, the Court must stay this case pending the outcome of the Board proceedings."

SEE PHOTOSHit or miss: Giants 1st-round picks since 1986

The NFL's brief argues that both the owners and the players would be placed in "an untenable position" if an injunction is granted and then the NLRB ruled that the union needed to reconstitute and resume bargaining.

The league also argues that the National Labor Relations Act does not recognize a union's disclaimer made in bad faith or used as a "tactical maneuver."

The league argues that the "NFL is subject to antitrust liability if it ceases or refuses to continue football operations, and it is subject to antitrust liability if it does not. This 'heads I win, tails you lose' approach is not and cannot be the law."

Despite the litigation, the NFL's chief negotiator, lead attorney Jeff Pash, Monday said the league still was open to the idea of negotiating. "Let's have decision makers at the table together," he said. "We could be back negotiating Wednesday."

SEE PHOTOSHit or miss: Jets' 1st-round picks since 1986

Notes & quotes: NFL owners are expected to vote Tuesday on a measure that would move kickoffs from the 30-yard line to the 35 in a bid to cut down on injuries. If passed, touchbacks would be placed at the receiving team's 25-yard line, not the 20, but there is a possibility that the competition committee will keep touchbacks at the 20. Patriots coach Bill Belichick said he opposes the change because it would cut down drastically on kickoff returns.