Case 1:08-cv-03658-PAC Document 37 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 4

USDC SDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DOC #: _________________
THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE : DATE FILED: March 25, 2011
PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
- against - : 08 Civ. 3658 (PAC)
:
THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE : ORDER
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, :
:
Defendant. :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff The National Football League (“NFL”) Players Association (“Players”) move to

enforce a judgment resolving a decades-long dispute between the Players and the National

Football League Management Council (“Management”), the multi-employer bargaining

representative of all 32 NFL Clubs. 1 The dispute concerns the meaning of Paragraph 10 of the

NFL Players Contract, which defines the “offset” that NFL Clubs are permitted to take from

injured NFL players’ state workers’ compensation awards. Management has argued that

Paragraph 10 provides a dollar-for-dollar offset, while the Players have argued that it provides

only for a time offset.

Pursuant to the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”), the Players have agreed

to resolve “[a]ny dispute . . . involving the interpretation of, application of, or compliance with,

any provision” of the CBA or the NFL Player Contract “exclusively in accordance with the”

grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in the CBA. (Mem. in Opp. 1). By Order dated

1
The Court assumes familiarity with the background facts and allegations as stated in the order of March 29, 2009.
See Nat’l Football League Players Assoc. v. Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council, No. 08 Civ. 3658(PAC), 2009
WL 855946 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2009).
 Case 1:08-cv-03658-PAC Document 37 Filed 03/25/11 Page 2 of 4

March 26, 2009, this Court granted the Players’ petition to confirm an arbitral award issued on

February 14, 2007 (“Award”) by an NFL arbitrator. Nat’l Football League Players Assoc. v.

Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council, No. 08 Civ. 3658(PAC), 2009 WL 855946 (S.D.N.Y.

Mar. 26, 2009). Judgment was entered in favor of the Players on March 29, 2009 (“Judgment”).

The Award resulted from the fifth arbitration addressing this issue, each of which was resolved

in the Players’ favor. (Mem. in Supp. 2). It provides that “Paragraph 10 of the NFL Player

Contract provides only for a time offset, and not for a dollar-for-dollar offset; this is a benefit or

right to the player, as well as the Club; and this is the law of the shop under this CBA and is

binding on all the Clubs.” (Kaiser Decl. Ex. C). Before the arbitrator issued the Award, the

Players and Management agreed that it could not be used as precedent in future disputes until the

CBA reached its “Final League Year,” which was 2010. The arbitrator also stated that the

preemptive effect of the Award is an issue “to be decided by the Courts.”

The Players assert that, despite this judgment, Management and several Clubs continue to

insist in various workers’ compensation proceedings that the dollar-for-dollar offsets apply.

Accordingly, the Players now move for a permanent injunction against the Management and all

NFL Clubs, preventing them from seeking or obtaining dollar-for-dollar offsets against NFL

players, and holding Management in contempt.

Management argues that the Players seek to circumvent the CBA’s mandatory arbitration

provisions and ask the Court to grant relief rejected by the arbitrator. 2 They contend that the

current controversy arises out of new workers’ compensation proceedings, which occurred over

2
Specifically, the arbitrator rejected the Players’ request for a cease and desist order since “[t]he legality of
provisions of state workers’ compensation laws is a matter to be decided in the appropriate state or federal forum,
not arbitration under the CBA.” (Kaiser Decl. Ex. C at 20). This statement has nothing to do with the present
motion, which considers the enforceability of the Award, not the legality of state workers’ compensation law.

2
 Case 1:08-cv-03658-PAC Document 37 Filed 03/25/11 Page 3 of 4

three years after the Award was issued and following material changes to the CBA that took

effect in March 2010.

The arbitrator expressly held that the preemptive effect of the Award was an issue to be

decided by the Courts. The Court now holds that the Award preempts any attempts by

Management to persist in interpreting Paragraph 10 of the CBA to provide for dollar-for-dollar

offsets. See S.F. Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 6, 577 F.2d

529, 534 (9th Cir. 1978) (“The court is not construing the contract; it is construing the holding of

a tribunal as to the contract's meaning. If, as we have held, the court is to have authority to

enforce the award, it must have the authority to construe it. To hold otherwise would in effect

deny the court power to enforce, since every effort made in that direction would successively and

interminably require further arbitration.”)

Management cites International Chemical Workers Union (AFL-CIO), Local No. 227 v.

BASF Wyandotte Corporation, but that case involved the rearbitration of two distinct

employment decisions concerning an individual employee. 774 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir. 1985). The

case here involves an attempt to continuously rearbitrate the interpretation of the same

contractual provision. The Court expressly stated in its March 26, 2009 Order that the purpose

of confirming the Award was to avoid having to rearbitrate the same issue repeatedly. Nat’l

Football League Players Assoc., 2009 WL 855946, at *3 (“Here, the parties have agreed that the

Award will not be effective until 2010, but by then, the applicable one year statute of limitations

on enforcement of the arbitral Award will have expired. Thus, the NFLPA would be compelled

to resort to arbitration again-as it has been forced to do twice before on the workers'

compensation issue.”)

3
 Case 1:08-cv-03658-PAC Document 37 Filed 03/25/11 Page 4 of 4

The Management's reliance on changes to the CBA subsequent to the Award are a red

herring. By the parties' agreement, the Award applies as of2010. Moreover, the relevant

provision-Paragraph 10-has remained unchanged since 1977. (Reply Mem. 7). The Court

has considered and rejected all of Management's other arguments in opposition to this motion.

Because Management admits that the Clubs persist in claiming dollar-for-dollar offsets,

(see, e.g., Mem. in Opp. 3), the Players have met their burden for a permanent injunction. The

Judgment is enforced, and Management is hereby enjoined from attempting to assert dollar-for­

dollar offsets under Paragraph 10 of the CBA. The Court declines, at this juncture, to hold

Management in contempt. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Docket # 24.

Dated: New York, New York

March 25, 2011

SO ORDERED

A~
United States District Judge