I'm starting to think both of the lawyers who've represented the Players' Association (Nicols and Langel) are not so great. The WNT need to look for better representation.
Really ? this is a big privacy problem for the girls, I am glad there are no such things in France. Necib Boulleau and Thiney would see fans coming to their house every day in that case...
U.S. Soccer should be genuflecting at the feet of these amazing women. Instead they sully themselves with this incredibly ignorant and slap handed 'mistake' by their sub-par paper pushers. Our USWNT has inspired more young players than anywhere else in the world and this is how you treat them? FIFA is not the only football organization that need a thorough house cleaning.
Just to clarify: by rules, I meant the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And really, the Labor Organization Annual Report is a Players' Association document that they self-reported, meaning they put that information out there in public themselves. Perhaps they should be more aware of what is and is not a public document and how that information might be used in the future. (However, I realize that at the time, they couldn't have known it would have been used in a court case but it was still a public doc. And I still hold USSF partially responsible with not taking more care with the players' privacy and safety because it might very turn out to be not only a privacy issue but a personal safety issue as well.)
First question would be was there an Olympic roster bonus in 2008? There may not have been a precedent. And it isn't always about Abby either-- HAO was injured off a roster once too, and Tarpley (twice?) But my point was that there can be quite different motivations about two different things there-- it isn't necessarily simply about "do we give Dunn money."
Was there an Olympic roster bonus? Yes, under the 2000 and 2005 CBA it was $10,000. The 2005 CBA also has the qualifying roster bonus of $10,000. I used Wambach as an example because I thought her case was more similar to Dunn's. I do not remember HAO or Tarpley ever being named to a tournament roster, injured, and then replaced by an alternate. In HAO's case, I can only think of her broken leg in 2003, but that was way before the 2003 WWC roster was named. For Tarpley, she tore her ACL in 2011, but again, I think it was before the WWC roster was named...but not sure. I'm sure that there is some other case besides Wambach's that I'm just not remembering now... I think I'll quote here the statement on Dunn from the Nov. 24, 2014 e-mail from John Langel to USSF so everyone can see what we're talking about: "Regarding Qualifying Roster bonuses, the Players' Association's position is that, despite her injury which occurred during training before the first game, Crystal Dunn should receive a Qualifying Roster bonus. We understand that US Soccer disagrees and sees the options as: File a grievance for Crystal to get the bonus or reach an agreement to pay Crystal on the condition that, going forward, the roster bonus will be paid to the players who are on the roster for the first game of the Olympic Qualifiers and World Cup and Olympics. Because the parties are discussing the issue, they have agreed that the time limitation for the grievance is suspended." EDIT: You're right. Tarpley is another example. She was named to the WWC roster 5 days before she tore her ACL.
According to the 2005 contract: bode added Each player on the tournament roster for WC or Olympic qualifying matches shall, if the team qualifiers for the applicable tournament, receive a bonus.... Each player named to the WC or Olympic tournament roster shall receive a roster bonus.... The 2013 MOU term sheet gives the bonus $ for Qualifying Bonus and Tournament Roster. Before Dunn, has there been a player named to a qualifier roster but injured and replaced before the event began? I cannot think of one but there may have been. Did those players originally named to WC/Olympic rosters but injured and replaced before the events began receive a roster bonus? Lets assume the answer has been yes and that is the precedent which the PA followed for Dunn. My read of the contract is that Dunn would not be eligible for a bonus for WC qualifier since she was not on the actual roster for the matches. That seemed to have been the USSF view. It also wanted the policy to be consistent for the qualifiers and tournaments, which implies either those injured WC/Olympic named players did not receive a bonus or it wanted to tighten or change the language in the contract to" on the" roster from "named" to roster.
Yes and that is splitting hairs. The language is vague and there was no clear definition of which roster they meant. The proposed amendment seems to clarify things should it happen in the future but I can certainly see grounds for a grievance. It becomes more interesting if Johnston was still a floater at that time. In that case the replacement player would have received a smaller bonus than Dunn would have if I read the MOU correctly. U could ask the same question with OlyQ roster. Is McCaffrey who I guess is a floater getting the same roster bonus O'Reilly would have gotten or do those bonuses only apply to full contract players?
The Players' Association has filed their response: Attorney Jeffrey Kessler has just filed a response the the lawsuit USSF filed against the union for U.S. Women's Soccer Team. #USWNT— Liz Mullen (@liz_mu11en) February 8, 2016 Union for World Cup winning #USWNT states they do not have a valid CBA with a no strike clause in papers filed by Jeffrey Kessler today.— Liz Mullen (@liz_mu11en) February 8, 2016
Also I'm not sure when the players' association took on Jeffrey Kessler. In USSF's docs, he's only mentioned in Exhibit O, an e-mail about the Feb. 3 meeting. In case any are unaware, Jeffrey Kessler is the attorney who represented Tom Brady.
The upshot seems to be the players claim they notified the USSF in July 2015 that it was their opinion there was no CBA and the USSF did nothing until the union forced their hand by sending a notice of termination. The union believe efforts to expedite a ruling at this point after doing nothing for so long is just legal maneuvering. As I recall one of the points in the turf suit that stood against the players was they waited until the last minute to take action.
Kessler is Cc: as early as the Jan. 4 email in which Nichols submitted his CBA proposal. I have not seen Kessler's response, but I take it as Kessler and his firm were retained by the PA at the latest as Jan. 4, probably in anticipation of legal actions. Two other names also are cc at Kessler's firm in later emails.
Would the Union have more or less power now that the USSF supports the NWSL or does it have no effect?
695037077617053696 is not a valid tweet id When this first broke, that date of January 3 on the release just jumped out at me. I wondered if it was a typo (which would be Lame-O) or was reflecting that this storm has been knowingly brewing at USSF. When you mention the date of January 4 for Kessler's join, it makes me further wonder.
It was a typo (Lame-O) as Jan. 3rd was a Sunday and the filing was Feb. 3rd. but clearly the press release was written ahead of the date of the filing of the suit as the release seems to refer to Nichols' Dec. 23 letter to USSF. I have to think the suit was also prepared ahead (maybe well ahead) of the Feb. 3rd. meeting. How long brewing? in the lawsuit: "...several months after he assumed the role as the Players Association Executive Director, Mr. Nichols began suggesting that there was no collective bargaining agreement between the Players Association and US Soccer and/or that any such agreement could be terminated by the Players Association at any time." And we can ask, why did the players decide to change their executive director/lawyer after 14 years of the same one?
I worked for a guy who owned the business and had come to town about 10 years before. He told me that when he was setting up he asked around to find out who the meanest SOB corporate lawyer in town was. He hired that guy.
The Players' Association's response: http://media.philly.com/documents/20160208_uswnt_response.pdf (This one is only 72 pages, so it won't take as long for me to read through.) Its also on pacer.gov if you have access there.
More to read! USSF's reply filed today on why it wants an expedited hearing: http://media.philly.com/documents/20160209_ussoccer_round_3.pdf
For those who want the tl:dr of the players' response, here's how I would sum it up: USSF was informed in July 2015 that the WNTPA's position was that there was no CBA in place. They sat on that information for months and are now asking for an expedited briefing schedule. No emergency exists (the players have not threatened a strike), and the court should reject the motion for an expedited hearing. As evidence of no CBA being in place, the WNTPA's response quotes USSF's financial statements: "The Women's National Team CBA expired on December 31, 2012. There is currently a signed Memo of Understanding in place while the full details of the new Women's National Team CBA are being negotiated." [emphasis Kessler's] The PA response also points out that the MOU makes no reference to incorporating the CBA. Also the MOU has no stated date. The line saying "Term of WNT contracts--4 years" refers to players' contracts and not the term of the MOU. The MOU also does not contain any no-strike clause. On this basis, USSF would have no basis to challenge a WNT strike. The PA's response also points out that USSF does not fully cite Langel's statement under oath. Here's the rest of it: "Q. And as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong - the memorandum of understanding has certain financial - made certain financial changes, but other than matters specifically identified in the memorandum of understanding, the terms of the expired CBA the parties have agreed will continue to control? A. Yes. [USSF ends the quotation there.] Q. Okay. A. But we've already agreed that the terms [of the prior CBA] don't control in certain circumstances. [emphasis Kessler's] Q: Okay. A. They've asked for waivers of 6 certain provisions Q. Okay. A. -- relating to the status of 9 certain players. And those requests came from Sunil Gulati to me." USSF also breached the terms of confidentiality in using Langel's statement. Here's the excerpt from the agreement in the arbitration in which Langel testified: "Sauer: Yes, your Honor. Let me try it this way. I would propose that the transcripts in this proceeding be deemed confidential as to the rest of the world other than the Men's National Team Players Association and its counsel, counsel for the Women's National Players Association, counsel for U.S. Soccer, and U.S. Soccer's officers and directors. Levinstein: That's agreed. Arbitrator: All right." Basically, the PA's position is that there is no CBA in place and the WNT players reserve all of their labor law rights, including the right to strike. There is also no need for an expedited hearing since USSF took no legal action earlier when they have been aware of the WNTPA's position since July 2015. (USSF was also informed of the WNTPA's position on the CBA on Nov. 30 and in writing on Dec. 23.)
This one is only 5 pages, but here's a summary: The WNTPA did not inform USSF of their position in writing until Dec. 24, 2015 and at that time, they gave notice of their right to engage in action 60 days later, which would be Feb. 24. The Olympics may be months away, but any action would also threaten the SheBelieves tournament, Olympic preparation, and the NWSL season. If the WNTPA really do not intend to strike, then they should just say so. A prompt resolution is also in the WNTPA's best interest since if they are correct, then they would have economic leverage. And I'll quote a bit of the rest as it gives the tone:"But, if the Players Association is wrong, and strikes in violation of an existing no-strike clause, the potential liability to the Players Association could be staggering....US Soccer submits that the Players Association is not at all certain of its position, and wishes to use the threat of an illegal strike to leverage US Soccer. Any delay in the resolution of this matter allows the Players Association to maintain that threat, and that leverage. The Players Association’s request for delay is akin to saying to this Court: 'We know pointing a loaded gun at US Soccer’s head to get a better deal than we have is wrong, but we are asking you to turn a blind eye for a while so we can continue to point the gun and see what we can get.' " Also USSF's response includes this little nugget: "training camps and other Olympic preparation matches with venues and opponents already confirmed for April, late May/early June, and July"
Better summary than mine: http://www.socceramerica.com/article/67617/case-behind-latest-legal-sparks-in-us-womens-su.html And some analysis: http://otfsoccer.com/2016/02/09/the-us-womens-national-soccer-team-strikes-back/
UPDATE: Judge in #USSF v #USWNT suit orders parties to return to court on March 3 to discuss further briefing on legal issues raised by USSF— J. Vlahakis (@jvlaha) February 9, 2016
Do we have a copy of the MOU? That seems to be the key to this whole thing. I don't see how the fact that the financial statements state the undisputed fact that the CBA expired on 12/31/12 as being some sort of smoking gun when it follows with the statement that "There is currently a signed Memo of Understanding in placewhile the full details of the new Women's National Team CBA are being negotiated." Seems that he MOU is the key to this whole dispute.