Suits In The WorkPlace

Why T.O. Lost

         The recent arbitration decision in the grievance filed by Terrell Owens against the Philadelphia Eagles and the NFL Management Council has several timeless lessons in it for all employers, despite the high-profile/high-dollar-value parties involved.  Although the union forcefully argued that the incidents for which Owens was suspended and ultimately placed on the inactive roster were a series of isolated events, the record maintained by the Eagles through a series of letters to Owens and his agent, coupled with the testimony of the head coach regarding his conversations with the two, allowed the arbitrator to discern an orchestrated pattern of conduct aimed at forcing Owens' employer to break its contract with Owens.  Once this orchestrated pattern was established, the arbitrator had little trouble in denying the grievance. 

            The Eagles made the arbitrator's job much easier by a series of letters to Owens detailing his instances of misconduct, as well as laying out their own theory that the misconduct was simply designed to get Owens out of a contract he wished he hadn't signed.  In addition, the Eagles' letters pointed out that Owens had publicly lied on several occasions regarding a so-called "secret waiver" that Owens claimed he was forced to sign relating to his medical condition at the end of the 2004 season.  This further undercut Owens' credibility when he testified at the arbitration hearing. 

            Finally, the Eagles did not make a unilateral decision until very late in the game with Owens, and even then offered him a way to avoid suspension and deactivation by making a public apology and addressing his concerns with the Eagles' quarterback directly.  For whatever reason, Owens refused to speak directly either to the football team or to the quarterback, and it was at that point that the Eagles suspended him.   

            The very clear warnings communicated to Owens in several letters from Eagles management, to paraphrase the arbitrator, acted as progressive discipline, properly advising Owens of unacceptable behavior, warning him that his tenure was becoming increasingly challenged, and attempting to provide for the possibility of better behavior in the future.  When these efforts failed, the arbitrator found that a four-game suspension was appropriate.

             The arbitrator also decided that there was no limitation on the Eagles coaching staff deactivating Owens and prohibiting him from returning to the Eagles facilities for the rest of the season.  The arbitrator's focus here was very narrow, he specifically noted (italics in the original) "the challenge faced by this team, dealing with this player in these particular circumstances."  Again, the "campaign of disruption" threatened and implemented by Owens and his agent was the determining factor for the arbitrator, who noted that what the Eagles had to deal with was not past bad behavior, but an ongoing threat of continued disruption.  He found that the Eagles' coaches properly exercised their discretion to protect the team and the interests of the football club by keeping Owens away from his teammates. 

            The NFL Players Association is understandably miffed by the arbitrator's decision, but really, it appears that Owens put himself in a uniquely disadvantageous position vis a vis his employer.  The employer carefully documented the incidents of problematic conduct, announced in its correspondence with Owens its theory of what he was doing and why, and then confronted him with the prospect of discipline or corrective action, which Owens refused.  I don't think the union should be particularly worried about the precedential value here.  I cannot imagine another player putting himself in this kind of a position, and the arbitrator seems to agree.