CFLPA Investigating Side Deal Claims

[jerrym]

The Canadian Football League Player's Association announced it is investigating whether some players had side deals with CFL clubs. While the CFLPA did not mention any players' names, this certainly involves at least Argos' Wilder and Butler and BC's Awe.



“We are investigating the circumstances as well as the discussions referenced by the players as they relate to their contracts or any other agreements that may have been in place,” Brian Ramsay, the CFLPA executive director, said in a statement. “Once we are satisfied with the results of the investigation, we will meet with the commissioner and league office to discuss next steps.”
Essentially, the union feels if a team has agreed to release a player from his CFL contract so he could try out south of the border, the terms of that deal should be honoured. ...

Last week, commissioner Randy Ambrosie reiterated the CFL’s stance that players are “required to honour their contracts as they are registered with the league.” ...

But the players point to differing rules existing for CFL coaches. Earlier this week, there was a report defensive co-ordinator Corey Chamblin wasn’t planning to return to the Argos this season despite having another year left on his contract. And in January 2017, Scott Milanovich resigned as Toronto head coach to become the quarterbacks coach with the NFL’s Jacksonville Jaguars.
“Unlike our players, CFL coaches and management have the benefit of both guaranteed contracts while also being able to seek other opportunities in either the NFL or college, despite having active contracts with the CFL,” Ramsay said. “The CFLPA, as well as our membership, are distressed with this continuing double standard as it relates to how the rules and agreements within our league are applied. We have brought these concerns to the CFL and will ensure that a fair and positive action can be taken to the satisfaction of our membership. The CFLPA does not expect to provide any public updates related to these investigations until the results are understood, communicated to all parties and we have agreed upon a fair resolution.”


http://nationalpost.com/pmn/sports-pmn/football-sports-pmn/cfl-football-sports-pmn/cflpa-investigating-whether-players-had-firm-agreements-from-teams

[Skilz]

The CFLPA doesn't have a leg to stand on. Its players are governed by a CBA, that several teams (BC included) are circumventing to acquire the American players who likely are on the fence in coming up North.

Frankly this was was Barker type move - and he did this on several occasions (most notably I think with Marcus Ball) - who ended up coming back to Toronto after his NFL stops.

Unfortunately, comparing the same to a coaches predicament is like apples and oranges. The Coaches don't have a CBA, or a Union. They are governed by nothing other than their personal interests....

Funny, how instead of asking to explore talks in which a "NFL window" should be reinstated, he is seeking an investigation...what do you think is going to happen?

10 Players are going to come out of the woodwork, alleging they had previous handshake deals...

[ArgoGabe22]

Coaches don't get a pension. Also, the CFLPA can investigate if they want but what exactly are the Argos doing wrong? Players said a legal binding contract and team is honouring it for now. I still don't have any ill will against Wilder and think he should just be let go to test the NFL but I don't see how an investigation will help.

[paulwoods13]

Investigate away, but even if they find players who can prove they were given side deals, there's nothing the PA can do about it. They can grieve if there's a violation of the collective agreement, but I very much doubt "no side deals are allowed" is mentioned in the CBA.

[ArgoZ]

To players not understand how Unions and laws work? I belong to a Union and some days this talk makes me shake my head.

[R.J]

According to Naylor, some of the Gm's don't want the window back because the handshake agreement gives them an advantage over teams that don't release players. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the League has given to much power and say to the Football ops, and should change that ASAP. Bring back the NFL window, make it 6-8 weeks, and who cares if the GM's voted 6-3 against bringing it back. If a GM got an NFL GM job, would they not expect the team to let them go ? Or it seems as though Football Ops can just re-sign nowadays with no penalty (aside from losing out on their contract worth). Double standards IMO that has to change.

[Will]

Nice of the CFLPA to finally wake up for their slumber.

[R.J]

Nice of the CFLPA to finally wake up for their slumber.
I wonder how quickly they would have acted if Canadian players were the ones taking issue.

[jerrym]

As a union, the CFLPA has a duty to fairly represent its members under labour law. When a member goes to the union under Canadian law it cannot arbitrarily dismiss the complaint.



What is the duty of fair representation?

Section 37 of the Code provides that a trade union, or any one of its representatives, that is the bargaining agent for a unit of employees, shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the bargaining unit with respect to their rights under the collective agreement that is applicable to them. This is called the duty of fair representation.
What do "arbitrary," "discriminatory" and "bad faith" mean?

A union must not act arbitrarily. Arbitrary conduct by the uniongenerally means that a union has failed to adequately INVESTIGATE an employee's grievance or issue and has handled the employee's case in a superficial manner. It can also mean that a union has not given sufficient consideration to the employee's interests when acting on his/her behalf or has been seriously negligent in representing an employee. However, this does not mean that unions cannot make mistakes or that they must always be correct in every assessment they make as to the merits of an employee's grievance. ...
Employees do not have the absolute right to have their grievances referred to arbitration. A union may decide not to pursue a grievance or may settle a grievance without the employee's agreement, as long as the union's decision is not arbitrary, discriminatory or made in bad faith.


http://www.cirb-ccri.gc.ca/eic/site/047.nsf/eng/00109.html

The CFLPA may or may not decide to follow up on its investigation of the complaint, but failure to even investigate a player's complaint could result in a complaint by the union member to the Labour Board. The CFLPA has hardly been known as a strong union in fighting for its members' rights (as when it did little when Bear Woods was released for reporting safety violations, which was his job as the Alouettes' player rep, which, in turn, led to his becoming an Argo). Therefore, the CFLPA may also be feeling pressure to respond more forcefully.

http://3downnation.com/2017/09/28/bears-woods-released-alouettes-reporting-safety-violations-union/

[argos1873]

Investigate away, but even if they find players who can prove they were given side deals, there's nothing the PA can do about it. They can grieve if there's a violation of the collective agreement, but I very much doubt "no side deals are allowed" is mentioned in the CBA.

Its called "Bad Faith". Just because its not explicitly mentioned in the agreement, doesn't mean that the employer can do anything and everything outside of the agreement. If what the employer did is considered in bad faith of the agreement, there may be cause. Not saying that these instances WILL be considered in bad faith, but I suppose side deals that in some way circumvent contracts that are supported by the CBA could be considered to be in bad faith. While there is possibly little the Union could do, I don't think there is nothing they can do, just because it isn't explicitly written into the CBA.

[Argo57]

Its called "Bad Faith". Just because its not explicitly mentioned in the agreement, doesn't mean that the employer can do anything and everything outside of the agreement. If what the employer did is considered in bad faith of the agreement, there may be cause. Not saying that these instances WILL be considered in bad faith, but I suppose side deals that in some way circumvent contracts that are supported by the CBA could be considered to be in bad faith. While there is possibly little the Union could do, I don't think there is nothing they can do, just because it isn't explicitly written into the CBA.

If there is nothing in writing then good luck in proving any “side deal” took place, but I can’t see Popp or Barker before him reneging on a verbal opt out deal if it was promised.

[paulwoods13]

Its called "Bad Faith". Just because its not explicitly mentioned in the agreement, doesn't mean that the employer can do anything and everything outside of the agreement. If what the employer did is considered in bad faith of the agreement, there may be cause. Not saying that these instances WILL be considered in bad faith, but I suppose side deals that in some way circumvent contracts that are supported by the CBA could be considered to be in bad faith. While there is possibly little the Union could do, I don't think there is nothing they can do, just because it isn't explicitly written into the CBA.

I believe pursuing a claim of bargaining in bad faith would require a complaint to the labour relations board, and could not be settled through a grievance procedure. IMO it would be pretty difficult to prove the league bargained in bad faith on the strength of claims by one or two players that they were offered side deals that were then reneged on.