tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281985477842806265.post4867620832724949237..comments2014-10-22T09:32:00.968-04:00Comments on Union Attorney: Ray Rice and Commissioner Discipline Under the NFL's Collective Bargaining AgreementAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14419387058940059630noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281985477842806265.post-1994379447240971642014-10-22T09:32:00.968-04:002014-10-22T09:32:00.968-04:00Ray Rice is finally getting a hearing on his punis...Ray Rice is finally getting a hearing on his punishment under the Collective Bargaining Agreement on November 5-6, 2014. Good thing that the Union stepped up for him, or he'd probably just be blackballed out of the league.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14419387058940059630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281985477842806265.post-5889284308336388722014-09-16T10:20:43.476-04:002014-09-16T10:20:43.476-04:00Yeah, you are probably right - but that does not m...Yeah, you are probably right - but that does not make it right. Regardless of how egregious Ray Rice's actions were, the NFLPA still has a duty to represent him to the fullest under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Commissioner has punished him twice for the same conduct and the Ravens disciplined him on top of that. The Collective Bargaining Agreement is silent as to the finality of the Commissioner’s rulings on discipline. However, allowing the Commissioner to increase punishment even though no appeal had been filed just because there is an absence of a specific provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement addressing the finality of the Commissioner’s decision belies the complexity of administering collective bargaining agreements. A collective bargaining agreement is an ongoing relationship, commencing rather than ending with its formal signing. Ray Rice’s next step should be to file a grievance on his behalf, either with or without the assistance of the NFLPA if they will not assist him, under Article 43 (Non-Injury Grievance) against both the club and the Commissioner for violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The grievance procedure is the mechanism for continuing bargaining. http://www.toledounionattorney.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14419387058940059630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281985477842806265.post-11929503705874145382014-09-16T10:09:32.214-04:002014-09-16T10:09:32.214-04:00Let's be honest, what's going to weigh mor...Let's be honest, what's going to weigh more heavy in the NFL's final decision in this matter: this bargaining agreement that most people don't know about or understand OR the public's opinion of what should happen to Ray Rice & his future w/ the NFL?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281985477842806265.post-55532057272111865902014-09-10T20:56:29.270-04:002014-09-10T20:56:29.270-04:00Regardless of what Ray Rice did, or how despicable...Regardless of what Ray Rice did, or how despicable one might think it was to watch him hit his girlfriend/wife, his player's union has a duty represent him fairly. That being said, from the Union's perspective they should be representing Ray Rice in this matter. The Collective Bargaining Agreement appears to be clear to me. The relevant section reads: "(d) Decision. As soon as practicable following the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer will render a written decision which will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the dispute and will be binding upon the player(s), Club(s) and the parties to this Agreement with respect to that dispute. Any discipline imposed pursuant to Section 1(b) may only be affirmed, reduced, or vacated by the hearing officer, and may not be increased." The unknown variables here would be: was there a hearing? Is this section applicable? If I were the NFLPA, I would argue that this section is directly on point. There are due process questions here and issues regarding both double jeopardy (he has already been punished) and ex-post facto (that issue being that they now have a domestic violence policy and the commissioner may be attempting to punish Rice under that policy even though it was not in effect when the incident occurred). The NFL will argue that they can increase the penalty because they had not seen the video. But is that an explanation for the harsher punishment? It appears to me that it was the NFL's responsibility to gather the evidence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14419387058940059630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281985477842806265.post-83154485649577307462014-09-10T20:38:29.994-04:002014-09-10T20:38:29.994-04:00so comish gave him 2 games now it's more , can...so comish gave him 2 games now it's more , can the nfl do thatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281985477842806265.post-70411025685577651912014-08-01T15:35:50.363-04:002014-08-01T15:35:50.363-04:00I’ve heard commentators on television suggest that...I’ve heard commentators on television suggest that the Baltimore Ravens should step in and add more games onto the discipline the Commissioner gave. However, Article 46, Section 4, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits that. It states: “One Penalty: The Commissioner and a Club will not both discipline a player for the same act or conduct. The Commissioner’s disciplinary action will preclude or supersede disciplinary action by any Club for the same act or conduct.”<br /><br />The Collective Bargaining Agreement governs the relationship between the club (employer) and the player (employee). According to Article 46, the Commissioner can discipline a player for: (1) actions on the football field (unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, etc.); and (2) actions off the football field (basically anything if it is "detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football"). In Ray Rice's case, he was disciplined under Article 46 for "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football." This phrase basically covers actions by a player off the football field (off duty conduct).<br /><br />Should off duty conduct be just cause for discipline? Should players have any privacy rights? If no, should a club be able to discipline a player who attended a rally for an anti-government group? Would that be detrimental to the league?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14419387058940059630noreply@blogger.com