drbill28
Registered User
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.
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.Jaded-Fan said: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 Messenger said: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
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.joepeps said:I heard that Canadian born players can only play in canada and american's in USA...
for impase.. is that true?
Wetcoaster said: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.
The Messenger said: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
me2 said: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 said:A team could offer a fixed rate of pay. 30 teams, individual businesses conspiring together, could not.
CarlRacki said: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 said: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 said: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.
The Messenger said: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
CarlRacki said: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.
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.mudcrutch79 said: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.