Case analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Case analysis - Essay ExampleThe NFL proposed a team player salary of $ 1,000 per week. The union, however, insisted that the club owners give squad players benefits and protections similar to those provided regular players. After dialogues on the print of developmental squad salaries reached an impasse, the NFL unilaterally implemented the developmental squad program by distributing to the clubs a like contract that embodied the terms of the program and the $ 1,000 proposed weekly salary. In 1990, 235 squad players brought suit in the joined States District Court for the District of Columbia against the NFL and its member clubs, in which suit it was claimed that the employers agreement to pay the squad players a $ 1,000 weekly salary violated the Sherman Act (15 USCS 1 et seq.).The District Court dismissed the petitioners complaint. Thus, the moorage was brought to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision of the lower court. Petitioner then elevated the pillowcase to th e Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari.A. The Supreme Court on certiorari said that the nonstatutory fight exemption shields from federal official just attack an agreement among several employers talk terms together to implement, after a collective bargaining impasse, the terms of the employers last best good-faith wage offer.C. B. With respect to the application of the nonstatutory labor exemption to multiemployer collective bargaining, in that respect was no basis for distinguishing football players from other organized workers.C. Stevens, J., expressed the view that neither the policies underlying the labor and antitrust statutory schemes, nor the purpose of the nonstatutory exemption, provided a justification for exempting from antitrust scrutiny collective action initiated by employers to depress wages below the level that would be produced in a free market.REACTION TO THE referenceThe antitrust exemption applies to the employer conduct at issue here, which took place dur ing and immediately after a collective-bargaining negotiation grew out of, and was a directly related to, the lawful operation of the bargaining process involved a matter that the parties were required to negotiate collectively and concerned only the parties to the collective-bargaining relationship. The Courts holding is not intended to alter from antitrust review every joint imposition of terms by employers, for an employer agreement could be sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances from the bargaining process that a rule permitting antitrust intervention would not significantly interfere with that process. The Court need not decide in this case