Procedural History: The National Football League (NFL), alongside other 32 separately-owned NFL teams sought a stay of order from the appellate court following an order from the state district court of the district of Minnesota enjoining lockout of players following an expiration of collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The order had far-reaching implication on the national football league as most of the team members of various clubs will not participate in the next matches as their contract expired. NFL was going to suffer a massive loss which according to the management of the league, the loss will not have any financial remedy as it will paralyze nearly all the activities of the league. A stay order will be enough to help facilitate a renewal of players CBA.
Facts: According to the Congress statement on the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the district court lacked the jurisdiction over labour injunction business which they had just executed. The Norris-LaGuardia Act was enacted by the members of the Congress to deter federal courts from interfering with labour regulations such as issuing injunctions and barring orders related o employment contracts. The district court was out of order to issue an order enjoining lockout of players upon the expiration of the players’ collective bargaining agreement which enabled them to participate in the league. Hence, the decision made by the district court was null and void. Also, NFL was likely to suffer irreparable harm should the appellate court fail to grant stay order. Any legislation either from the lower house or the upper house which invalidates previous laws automatically become the new laws, and no legal decision can be made using outdated sections of the law which have become obsolete (Finkin 69).
The district court error in their action to issue an order knowing very well the matter at hand was beyond their realm of power. Although they had a say in labor related businesses in the past, the previous authority bestowed on them could not stand against the current Norris-LaGuardia Act. The NFL was aware of the impending expiration of their players CBA contract. They had a legal obligation to ensure timely renewal of their players’ labour related contracts. However, they failed to act on time thus forcing out the players from labour unions which champions for their welfares as required by the law.
Issues: In this case, the court was interested in establishing whether NFL claims of the district court as lacking the legal jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Next, the court is interested in establishing whether NFL will suffer irreparable harm in absentia of the stay order. Also, the court was interested in establishing whether NFL fulfilled its burden to demonstrate how the district court verdict is likely to impact negatively on their operations.
Decision: The appellate court granted stay order to NFL following successful registering weighty reasons and proving they will suffer hugely loses without the stay order. The court based its decisions on two important legal elements. The jurisdiction of the district court and unquantifiable loss by NFL should the appellate court uphold the district court judgement that barred players whose CBA had expired from participating in the league games until the matter is resolved through securing a new collective bargaining agreement with a registered labor union.
Rule: In making the decision, the court examined four principle elements. The first one regards applicant success in demonstrating likelihood to succeed in the ongoing case based on merit. Secondly, possible losses the applicant will supper should that stay order be denied. Next, the impact of stay order on other interested parties. For instance, the court has to establish any form of injury likely to face other parties. Lastly, the court should consider public interest concerning the case.
One of the most fundamental issues to consider while making the rule that is to apply to the case is the legality of the previous pronouncement by the district jury. The district court must have legal jurisdiction over cases it presides. Cases which are beyond their realm of power should be referred to the Supreme Court for further direction or ruling. Another important issue the court of appeal needs to look concerns the ground of application. The court will make a decision whether the application is based on technical or legal grounds. This will be decided based on the applicant’s final submissions to the court.
Reasoning: The applicant demonstrated a likelihood of succeeding on merit following technical inability of the district court to preside over employment-related issues. The action of the court was inconsistent with the newly enacted laws by the Congress which stripped them off their ability to administer injunction order on labour issues. This informed the appellate court decision to rule on technicality ground since the lower court acted beyond its legal domain.
Disposition: The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the district court had no legal jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia to engage in any labour injunction business. ‘This implied that the national football league could resume its normal activities and help players join registered labour groups through which their interest will be looked into to ensure continued success in the industry. Consequently, the previous order issued by the lower court was declared null and void. NFL was granted a go-ahead order to facilitate the renewal of players CBA to leverage their players with the international labour regulations which govern football leagues across the world.
Concurrence: The NFL players would suffer if the court failed to issue stay order considering the fact that at this time, they are no longer protected by any labour group hence were more vulnerable to labour abuses.
Comments: The appellate court did the right thing to squash the district court order enjoining lockout of employees. This was appropriate because the Norris-La-Guardia had stripped the federal courts from interfering with any labour injunction business. As a result, the district court decision was non-actionable since it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the law governing the operations of such courts (Finkin et al. 37) in dispensing justice.
According to Storey, Patrick, and David, any part of previous legislation that either delegated authority or invalidates previous laws should be expunged from the criminal justice system upon enactment of new legislations which overwrite such laws as such regulations will have a far-reaching effect on both the management and employee relationship (13). On the other hand, Servais argue that there is a need to ensure the autonomy of federal courts and only the Congress should pass legislations that support various changes in different state departments which are deemed appropriate and will be beneficial to all the stakeholders and facilitates the efficiency of the criminal justice department (43). In this case involving Brady and the National Football League, the Congress had done their part in passing relevant laws, and it was upon the district court to update their system and know where their legal jurisdiction ends regarding labour issues.
Works Cited
Finkin, Matthew W., Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, and Takashi Araki. Multinational Human Resource Management and the Law: Common Workplace Problems in Different Legal Environments. New York, NY: Edward Elgar Limited, 2015. Print.
Servais, Jean-Michel. International Labour Law. Alphen Aan Den Rijin: Kluwer Law International, 2011. Print.
Storey, John, Patrick M. Wright, and David Ulrich. The Routledge Companion to Strategic Human Resource Management. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
