Questions about RFAs Status

[djhn579]

Well djhn579, was that supposed to be a defense for the owners? Certainly seems damning to me.

Please explain. By the link I posted, the owners have done nothing that could be considered bad faith negotiating (from what has been made public anyway...)

 

[vanlady]

Please explain. By the link I posted, the owners have done nothing that could be considered bad faith negotiating (from what has been made public anyway...)

Please point out where the owners have made a single concession. The players have come off the no cap stance and reduced wages by 24%. Exactly where is there an owner concession????

Before responding read #2 and #3 of the document posted

Oh and be careful to read the "broad management clause" in the owners original proposal. That alone should sink them based on Supreme Court precedent.

 

[djhn579]

Please point out where the owners have made a single concession. The players have come off the no cap stance and reduced wages by 24%. Exactly where is there an owner concession????

Before responding read #2 and #3 of the document posted

Oh and be careful to read the "broad management clause" in the owners original proposal. That alone should sink them based on Supreme Court precedent.

I guess that you did not read the fine print. If you read the post again, directly under the 3 points listed, it says...

Additionally:
Boulwarism was determined by the Board and the appellate court to represent bad faith bargaining. In the court decision, the critical issue was the combination of tactics, each of which might have been legal in the abstract. By combining specific tactics which may be legal into an overall effort to circumvent the union, the company had engaged in bad faith bargaining.

Additionally, the NHL have made several different proposals with differing levels of salary cap. This does not matter though, since you completely ignored...

Under Section 8(d), neither party is required to make concessions or agree to a proposal. As a result, hard bargaining by itself is presumably legal.



In case you are not aware, the section 8(d) they are refering to is taken from the NLRA...

(d) [Obligation to bargain collectively] For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession: Provided, That where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract covering employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termination or modification--

http://union-organizing.com/nlra.html



As for the "Broad Management Clause", I searched the Dec 14th proposal, Feb 9th compomise proposal, and Feb 15th final offer, but found nothing saying "broad management". So, perhaps you could be kind enough to post what you are talking about.

 

[vanlady]

I guess that you did not read the fine print. If you read the post again, directly under the 3 points listed, it says...

Additionally:
Boulwarism was determined by the Board and the appellate court to represent bad faith bargaining. In the court decision, the critical issue was the combination of tactics, each of which might have been legal in the abstract. By combining specific tactics which may be legal into an overall effort to circumvent the union, the company had engaged in bad faith bargaining.

Additionally, the NHL have made several different proposals with differing levels of salary cap. This does not matter though, since you completely ignored...

Under Section 8(d), neither party is required to make concessions or agree to a proposal. As a result, hard bargaining by itself is presumably legal.



In case you are not aware, the section 8(d) they are refering to is taken from the NLRA...

(d) [Obligation to bargain collectively] For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession: Provided, That where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract covering employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termination or modification--

http://union-organizing.com/nlra.html



As for the "Broad Management Clause", I searched the Dec 14th proposal, Feb 9th compomise proposal, and Feb 15th final offer, but found nothing saying "broad management". So, perhaps you could be kind enough to post what you are talking about.

I suggest you do some reading of cases that are now Supreme Court precendents in this area. I will start you off but I suggest you also look into GE, Mclatchey, King Size Sandwich and a few others on the supbect. Below I will attach Duffy

http://www.braunconsulting.com/bcg/newsletters/spring2001/bargain2.html

I also suggest you read a book called the Art of Negotiation.

 

[don]

NLRB, Supreme Court and Canada

I don't think that either of these organizations carry any weight in Canada but I am really stupid about Canadian and International Law as they apply to the conversations. Can anyone shed some accurate light?

 

[Wetcoaster]

This is my pont exactly. Any "rule" under the old CBA should be null and void. The only way the RFAs could be retained by their previous team would be for all of the owners to have a signed contract between themselves where they agree not to sign another teams players. And, as Other Dave points out, this would probably be a point of negotiation under the new CBA.

So, if it can work like this for RFAs, why not have a draft and have the same rules apply.

Antitrust law.

 

[mudcrutch79]

Currently all players on one-way contracts are UFA's. Their previous contracts are void and how those contracts will be recognized, if at all, must be included in the new CBA. During the previous lockout, the new CBA was made retroactive to the expired one so previous contracts were simply reinstated as written. It's all subject to negotiations. If the league is able to legally impose a CBA under impasse, it can recognize the terms of contracts signed under the old CBA any way it chooses that the NLRB deems reasonable. If they go that route, an across the board 24% pay cut is a given, along with any other concessions the NHLPA has made during negotiations.

How do you figure that the contracts would be void? Article 18 of the contract makes it subordinate to "...any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA"

To me, that makes it look like the parties have contemplated that there might be an environment without a CBA, and that the contract would still be valid.

 

[mudcrutch79]

but once an impass is declared and the the PA is decertified would it constitute an "unfair labor practice"? I don't claim to be a lawyer, thank God, and I did start off stating that the leagle questions are confusing. This is more so because of the different labor laws between the US and Canada. I think most of us are just throwing out "food for thought". Don't really need the sarcasm.

It's not food for thought. It's the same nonsensical ideas that have been thrown out since August, and the same people are explaining why they won't work. This board would really benefit from an FAQ on these issues.

 

[djhn579]

I suggest you do some reading of cases that are now Supreme Court precendents in this area. I will start you off but I suggest you also look into GE, Mclatchey, King Size Sandwich and a few others on the supbect. Below I will attach Duffy

http://www.braunconsulting.com/bcg/newsletters/spring2001/bargain2.html

I also suggest you read a book called the Art of Negotiation.

I'm sorry. You mentioned something about the "Broad Management Clause" in the NHL's proposal. I asked you to post what you were talking about since I couldn't find it. Instead, you change the topic...

very interesting....

 

[missK]

.....but I don't see where the players have a leg to stand on to contend anything. Any major roadblock could easily lead to the league folding and opening as a new league, i.e. PHL (Professional Hockey League). The owners of the "old" Boston Bruins could sell the naming and logo rights to the owners of the "new" Boston Bruins (don't get your hopes up Bruins fans because it will still be Jacobs). Players then would have the choice of playing hockey under the rules of the "PHL" or not playing at all and going back to cutting timber for a living. I'm sure that some of the hardcore dissenters would not sign up but I bet the majority of players would. I'm also sure that the quality of play would go down but that would only last for a few years until the new batch of superstars comes of age.

The NHL owns the copyrights for all team names and logos, not the individual teams so your idea won't work.

 

[vanlady]

I'm sorry. You mentioned something about the "Broad Management Clause" in the NHL's proposal. I asked you to post what you were talking about since I couldn't find it. Instead, you change the topic...

very interesting....

Did you actually read the July 21 offer from the owners, you know the one with the six "concepts" in it, or did you just skim the news. Unlike you I have read each and every offer from either side, from front to back. If you actually read more than the Coles notes versions you might pick up on these nasty little bombs that the NHL is trying to stick in.

 

[Wetcoaster]

The NHL owns the copyrights for all team names and logos, not the individual teams so your idea won't work.

Not true.

The individual teams license their rights to NHL Enterprises for marketing purposes. Run a trademark search online - they are free - and confirm this for yourself.

 

[djhn579]

Did you actually read the July 21 offer from the owners, you know the one with the six "concepts" in it, or did you just skim the news. Unlike you I have read each and every offer from either side, from front to back. If you actually read more than the Coles notes versions you might pick up on these nasty little bombs that the NHL is trying to stick in.

Maybe if you posted what you are talking about, I would be able to follow what you are trying to get across.

but lets take each point of Boulwarism and see if it holds up...

1) Offering to the union a packaged proposal on an "all or nothing, take it or leave it" basis.

If your still harping on something that was in the NHL's six concepts, I don't think this applies. The only thing that the NHL has insisted on is cost certainty. That is within their rights and they don't have to compromise on that. Since the six concepts, they have made something like 3 proposals. Were any of these termed as being on a "all or nothing, take it or leave it" basis? Except for the $42.5M final offer to try to save the season, I don't think so. Are the "Broad Management Clauses" you are so concerned about still in the other NHL proposals?


2) Exhibiting, at the table, a willingness to explain its proposal and to listen to counterproposals, but refusing pro forma (as a matter of form) to make any changes in the complete package, and

The fact that the NHL has made multiple proposals with changes in everything from the revenue percentages to arbitration right show that they have been willing to make changes in their packages...


3) Appealing directly to the workforce to encourage acceptance of the package, by providing detailed information on the basis for the unilaterally established package.

Has the NHL made any concerted effort to reach out to the players? I believe they did for the final offer to save the season, that was when they relaxed the gag order, but since that offer is now off the table, I don't think that matters any more.


I don't see where you can even start to make a case for Boulwarism. From what I read, the NHL has to be doing all three of the above points at the same time in a concerted effort to get the union to accept their deal. They are not doing that, they are still negotiating in good faith.

 

[me2]

They must make concessions if the PA does, if they fail to make any concessions at all, that is Boulwarism and is highly illegal in the US

They don't have to concede on the money, they can concede on other issues. Regressive bargaining isn't illegal. Now once they lose the $2m/team/year from ESPN they'll probably come back with $40.5m.

As for Boulwarism has the NHL moved? Did it start out with a take it or leave it offer?

Linkage: gone
hard cap: in
negotiations on cap figure: yes
Hard cap increase: yes
negotiations on other areas: yes

How exactly does that make it Boulwarism? You might want a new legal dictionary. You say they have to meet in the middle.


Lets take a binary situation

Company want no smoking in the workplace.

Union wants smoking in the workplace.

Owners want 0% of each cigarette smoked. Union wants 100% of each cigarette smoked. What are they going to do? Negotiate the percentage of each cigarette smoked and meet in the middle and allow workers to smoke 50% of a cigurette?