Brian Burke on CKNW 980(Vancouver)

[drbill28]

Yes. Just like it's illegal for the players to submit a CPA proposal directly to the league without representation. They don't decide when the strike ends by crossing it. It'd be very awkward, but it'd still be going on.

 

[Jazz]

They are replaying the Ron MacLean interview...

 

[Mess]

Scenerio (and a likely one): Impasse, NHLPA goes on strike and goes to the labor board. Scabs, more than half the players cross and the union is effectively broken. Does the case before the labor board then remain to potentially bite the owners down the road?

The more serious legal questions would start once the NHL tried to implement its last contract offer. The union would seek an injunction preventing that implementation to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, and possibly the four Canadian provinces - each of which have their own labour legislation. The union would charge that the two sides aren't at impasse and/or that the league didn't bargain fairly.

Let's say the NLRB decides in favour of the league, and no Canadian authorities question the board's conclusion.

The NHL could open training camps and hope regular players return, but more likely, the union would either declare a strike or, in a much bolder move, dissolve the union so its players could launch anti-trust lawsuits. Players would argue that a league salary cap is an unfair labour practice since it applied to members of a union that no longer exists.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=115284&hubName=nhl

 

[joepeps]

The more serious legal questions would start once the NHL tried to implement its last contract offer. The union would seek an injunction preventing that implementation to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, and possibly the four Canadian provinces - each of which have their own labour legislation. The union would charge that the two sides aren't at impasse and/or that the league didn't bargain fairly.

Let's say the NLRB decides in favour of the league, and no Canadian authorities question the board's conclusion.

The NHL could open training camps and hope regular players return, but more likely, the union would either declare a strike or, in a much bolder move, dissolve the union so its players could launch anti-trust lawsuits. Players would argue that a league salary cap is an unfair labour practice since it applied to members of a union that no longer exists.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=115284&hubName=nhl

I heard that Canadian born players can only play in canada and american's in USA...

for impase.. is that true?

 

[Wetcoaster]

I heard that Canadian born players can only play in canada and american's in USA...

for impase.. is that true?

Yes more or less. US citizens and legal US immigrants (aka Green card holders, alien residents) can play for US based teams. Anyone who requires a work visa cannot play during a labour dispute.

Same rules in Canada.

 

[Chayos]

Yes more or less. US citizens and legal US immigrants (aka Green card holders, alien residents) can play for US based teams. Anyone who requires a work visa cannot play during a labour dispute.

Same rules in Canada.

I heard that teh lawyers in For the NHL were investigating whether the players would be considered Contractors because of their contracts and then as such would not be considered employees so the league could get around hiring outsiders to fill "jobs"

 

[Icey]

They have to before the national labor relations board.

 

[me2]

The more serious legal questions would start once the NHL tried to implement its last contract offer. The union would seek an injunction preventing that implementation to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, and possibly the four Canadian provinces - each of which have their own labour legislation. The union would charge that the two sides aren't at impasse and/or that the league didn't bargain fairly.

Let's say the NLRB decides in favour of the league, and no Canadian authorities question the board's conclusion.

The NHL could open training camps and hope regular players return, but more likely, the union would either declare a strike or, in a much bolder move, dissolve the union so its players could launch anti-trust lawsuits. Players would argue that a league salary cap is an unfair labour practice since it applied to members of a union that no longer exists.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=115284&hubName=nhl

A cap might be illegal. A fixed rate of pay might not (speculation, similar to a fixed wage a factory worker might get). $1.3m/y for everyone.

 

[mudcrutch79]

A cap might be illegal. A fixed rate of pay might not (speculation, similar to a fixed wage a factory worker might get). $1.3m/y for everyone.

A team could offer a fixed rate of pay. 30 teams, individual businesses conspiring together, could not.

 

[CarlRacki]

A team could offer a fixed rate of pay. 30 teams, individual businesses conspiring together, could not.

I don't mean this rhetorically ... it's a serious question:

Are you certain that, from a legal standpoint, the 30 teams would be viewed as 30 separate businesses and not simply franchisees of the NHL? Just wondering.

 

[mudcrutch79]

I don't mean this rhetorically ... it's a serious question:

Are you certain that, from a legal standpoint, the 30 teams would be viewed as 30 separate businesses and not simply franchisees of the NHL? Just wondering.

Even if they were franchisees of the NHL...it doesn't matter. Franchisee implies separate ownership of the businesses, which there clearly is in this case. If they tried to convince the courts (assuming this came down to anti-trust) that they were just owners of 1/30th shares in the NHL, they'd get nowhere, as far as I can see.

It sounds to me that the route the NHL is investigating is trying to argue that the players are contractors. I don't know my American law, but I can tell you that wouldn't fly in Canada.

I don't know why people keep bringing this up. It's a non-starter.

 

[CarlRacki]

Even if they were franchisees of the NHL...it doesn't matter. Franchisee implies separate ownership of the businesses, which there clearly is in this case. If they tried to convince the courts (assuming this came down to anti-trust) that they were just owners of 1/30th shares in the NHL, they'd get nowhere, as far as I can see.

It sounds to me that the route the NHL is investigating is trying to argue that the players are contractors. I don't know my American law, but I can tell you that wouldn't fly in Canada.

I don't know why people keep bringing this up. It's a non-starter.

But aren't franchisees bound to certain rules and regulations by the mother ship? A McDonald's franchise has to serve its products a certain way. A Crispy Kreme must use the corporate logo.
Again, I'm not an expert in this area by any means, just throwing thoughts out there.

FWIW, I tend to agree that replacement players are not a realistic option and the NHL knows as much.

 

[mudcrutch79]

But aren't franchisees bound to certain rules and regulations by the mother ship? A McDonald's franchise has to serve its products a certain way. A Crispy Kreme must use the corporate logo.
Again, I'm not an expert in this area by any means, just throwing thoughts out there.

FWIW, I tend to agree that replacement players are not a realistic option and the NHL knows as much.

Right, you're allowed to make some agreements in your franchise agreement on things like that. What you're not allowed to do is violate laws. Having policies in the agreement requiring the owners to offer a certain salary would be a legal violation.

 

[drbill28]

The more serious legal questions would start once the NHL tried to implement its last contract offer. The union would seek an injunction preventing that implementation to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, and possibly the four Canadian provinces - each of which have their own labour legislation. The union would charge that the two sides aren't at impasse and/or that the league didn't bargain fairly.

Let's say the NLRB decides in favour of the league, and no Canadian authorities question the board's conclusion.

The NHL could open training camps and hope regular players return, but more likely, the union would either declare a strike or, in a much bolder move, dissolve the union so its players could launch anti-trust lawsuits. Players would argue that a league salary cap is an unfair labour practice since it applied to members of a union that no longer exists.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=115284&hubName=nhl

There'd be nothing to worry about from Canadian labor boards. The worst they could accomplish is shutting down two teams. They can't shut down the whole thing. They'd be walking a thin line if they did that anyway. I agree with the people that say since the union isn't recognized in BC or Quebec that there's still players they could hire. Canadian authority is very limited in this matter.

I don't believe disolving the union to make a claim that a cap is unfair to players returning not unionized would work. They agreed to play under a cap by not negotiating and lost (if that's how it turns out). I don't see how the NHL could be forced to change the rules because they decided to disolve the very thing they would be arguing that isn't there to protect the players, a union. That'd be like quitting a job claiming you can keep benfits because being unemployed doesn't come with a health plan.

 

[drbill28]

I don't mean this rhetorically ... it's a serious question:

Are you certain that, from a legal standpoint, the 30 teams would be viewed as 30 separate businesses and not simply franchisees of the NHL? Just wondering.

You're missing the meaning of franchise. Say it's McDonald's. McDonald's is a corporation where a entrepeneur can buy a franchise. They start, their own business. No different from Bob's Diner down the street. Only they're paying to use a name and likeness. In return they agree to run the franchise by the rules that McDonald's sets. McDonald's doesn't own this franchise. They could up and make it an Arby's franchise if they so wish.

 

[drbill28]

Even if they were franchisees of the NHL...it doesn't matter. Franchisee implies separate ownership of the businesses, which there clearly is in this case. If they tried to convince the courts (assuming this came down to anti-trust) that they were just owners of 1/30th shares in the NHL, they'd get nowhere, as far as I can see.

It sounds to me that the route the NHL is investigating is trying to argue that the players are contractors. I don't know my American law, but I can tell you that wouldn't fly in Canada.

I don't know why people keep bringing this up. It's a non-starter.

This sort of blurs things a little. The NHL is an American business no Canadian authority can impose its will on it. Only Canadian teams, since they're separate of the NHL. Then again when it comes to labor, only Canadian players on Canadian hockey teams. Others only prevent them from playing in Canada...at worst. That's questionable at best.