National Football League Players Association v. Pro-Football, Inc.

The collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the National Football League (NFL) Management Council (council) (defendant) and the NFL Players Association (union) (plaintiff) required that—wherever and whenever legal—NFL players had to pay union dues and NFL clubs had to suspend players who did not pay. Pro-Football, Inc. owned the Washington Redskins (collectively, club) (defendant). In December 1993, the union advised the council that Terry Orr and 36 other club players (players) had not paid their dues. When the club refused to suspend the players, the union filed a grievance. The club responded that although it played its home games in the District of Columbia (DC)—where the dues-provision was legal—it was subject to Virginia law—where the agency-shop provision was illegal— because Virginia was the players’ predominant job situs. Per the club, this was because the players spent the majority of their working time at its Virginia practice facility. The union countered that DC was the predominant job situs because the club played its home games in DC and derived most of its revenue from playing games, and the players’ pay was based on how many games for which they were on the club’s roster. The arbitrator ruled that the players’ predominant job situs was DC because the club’s raison d’être (i.e., reason for being) was to play games, not to practice. In a concurrent proceeding, Orr obtained a temporary restraining order in Virginia state court enjoining the club from suspending him, based on the judge’s conclusion that Virginia was Orr’s predominant job situs. The union sued the council and the club, seeking an order requiring the suspension of the players. The court denied these requests. The club then counterclaimed against the union for a declaratory judgment voiding the arbitrator’s award. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.