The NFL has informed the players’ union it is willing to have someone other than Commissioner Roger Goodell make future rulings on player discipline but the league remains adamant that appeals of such decisions would continue to be resolved by Goodell or a person appointed by him.
The league and the union remain at odds over a variety of issues as the NFL reworks its personal conduct policy in the aftermath of the Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson and Greg Hardy cases. The union has expressed its desire to have appeals of player disciplinary decisions heard and resolved by a neutral arbitrator.
Under the current system, disciplinary rulings are made by Goodell or a person designated by him, and appeals also are heard and resolved by Goodell or someone designated by him.
Pash’s letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was sent after representatives of the league and union met last week. Pash expressed disappointment at what he called the union’s unwillingness to discuss “any aspect” of the new conduct policy at that meeting. The letter suggests the league views the union’s most recent proposal as potentially weakening the conduct policy.
“We remain disappointed that the NFLPA declined to discuss any aspect of its proposal or our response when we met [last] week,” Pash wrote. “As both the Commissioner and Mr. [New York Giants co-owner John] Mara made clear, we had reviewed your proposal in detail with the [owners’ bargaining committee the previous] week and were fully prepared to engage in a serious discussion on a number of important issues.”
According to Pash’s letter, the union’s most recent proposal would allow a player to be placed on paid leave pending the outcome of a criminal case only with the player’s consent.
Pash’s letter also suggests the union has taken the position that discipline could be imposed at the completion of a player’s case only if the player is convicted of a crime. Pash wrote that such an approach would be insufficient, in the league’s view.
“Although the proposal is vague on this point, during our meeting in Washington, you and your colleagues (including the two members of the union’s commission who attended the meeting) appeared to take the position that discipline could only be imposed if a player were convicted of a criminal offense,” Pash wrote. “As you know, that is not how the policy has been applied, as the legal considerations and standards applicable to a criminal conviction are quite distinct from those that apply to a violation of a workplace policy. We do not agree that the Commissioner’s disciplinary authority should be limited to cases involving a criminal conviction.”
George Atallah, the union’s assistant executive director of external affairs, said in a written statement in response to Pash’s letter: “If the NFL would have prepped a response before our meeting on Tuesday, it would have been more productive. A Sunday fax doesn’t lend itself to effective collective bargaining.”
The personal conduct policy currently gives Goodell broad powers to discipline players for off-field misconduct, even if the player is not convicted of a crime. Goodell previously has left open the possibility of allowing his authority to be reduced when the revised conduct policy is completed. But until Sunday’s letter from Pash to the union, the NFL had not detailed how Goodell’s powers would be reduced.
It’s possible the union would be willing to agree to allow Goodell to retain the authority to make initial disciplinary rulings if those decisions could be appealed to an independent arbitrator. The union stressed the importance of an independent arbitrator in the appeals by Rice and Peterson of their suspensions. Goodell appointed former federal judge Barbara S. Jones to hear Rice’s appeal, and she vacated Rice’s indefinite suspension by the NFL and reinstated him Friday. Goodell appointed Harold Henderson, a former labor executive for the league, to hear Peterson’s appeal Tuesday. The union has questioned Henderson’s independence.
The resolutions of the Rice and Peterson cases have been marked by combativeness between the league and union. So, too, has the formation of the new conduct policy. The union has expressed the view that the new policy should be the subject of formal collective bargaining and has said the league refuses to engage in that.
It is not clear if the league needs the union’s agreement to put the new policy into effect. When Goodell toughened the personal conduct policy in 2007, he did so with the cooperation of Gene Upshaw, the union’s late executive director.
The league seems to view its willingness to have someone else make the initial ruling in player disciplinary cases a significant concession to the union. That authority has rested with the commissioner under the sport’s CBA for decades, remaining unchanged through numerous rounds of labor negotiations. It is not clear from Pash’s letter who would make the initial ruling in player disciplinary cases if that power no longer rests with Goodell. It potentially could be a panel of experts agreeable to both the league and union.
There is the separate issue of a player being placed on paid leave pending the outcome of a criminal case. According to Pash’s letter, the union wants such leave to be voluntary on the player’s part.
“We similarly cannot agree that leave with pay should be a strictly voluntary step,” Pash wrote. “We believe that paid leave should be applied on a uniform and mandatory basis whenever a player is charged with a crime of violence.”
Peterson and Hardy consented to be on what amounted to paid leave this season by agreeing to be placed on the exempt-commissioner’s permission list. The league and union differed on when Peterson should be reinstated from that list after he reached a plea deal in his criminal case. An arbitrator ruled in the NFL’s favor and Peterson remains on the list and ineligible to play while his appeal of his suspension is pending.
The issue of whether “time served” on paid leave should be taken into account when an unpaid suspension is imposed has been raised in the Peterson case. That remains an unresolved subject of deliberation between the league and union in their discussions regarding the new conduct policy.
“When we discussed the proposal at our meeting in Washington, there was not a consensus among you and your colleagues as to what ‘taken into account’ meant, and it was suggested by one of your consultants that it needed to be done on a case-by-case basis,” Pash wrote.
Pash’s letter suggests that the league and union also are deliberating over whether misdemeanors as well as felonies should subject a player to possible discipline under the revised conduct policy.
Around the NFL