Rob Ray suing the NHLPA

[Bicycle Repairman]

Did the Senators sign him because they needed toughness or because ownership wanted a pawn to annoy the PA with during the lockout?

Well, he's not under contract to the Senators anymore, but your basic gist isn't that far fetched. It's quite common in protracted labour disputes to see a rash of frivolous lawsuits, labor board grievances and other such manouvers by both sides. It's petty perhaps, but it keeps the lawyers busy.

 

[Bruwinz37]

Naturally.

The NHLPA is a fair and democratic organization.

Seems Ray has ignored conventional procedure and launched a lawsuit, however.

Like you ignore facts and only see things through Goodenow's blurred vision?

 

[Wetcoaster]

Rob Ray has claimed that he never said he was retiring and never told anyone that he was. He repeated that claim in an interview today with SportsNet.

Ray must have taken too many shots to the head during his career. Ray must have forgot about the interview he did with the Buffalo News on November 2, 2004 in which he told reporter Tim Graham that he was done and would never play again (he repeated it several times). He was specifically asked about his previous comment about playing as a replacement player and said that was only a "pipe dream" and he would never play again.

SportsNet reproduced Ray's comments today on a segment by Nick Kypreos in which Kypreos pointed out that the decision came from the NHLPA executive and not Goodenow. Kypreos also stated out there were a number of former players in similar circumstances to Ray who were not receiveing lockout pay including Calle Johannsen, Adam Oates, Joe Juneau, Andreas Dackell, etc.

Even IF Ray was being punished for his claim - so what? That is not unusual for unions to do such things as it happens all the time. In BC if a union member, even after retiring, went to work for a non-union company in his/her trade then the union can stop payment on the pension and health benfits as well drum the person out as a retired member. Threatening to become a scab would draw swift retribution from a union involved in a lockout - in BC being a scab is an unfair labour practise under the law. That is the Union's prerogative since they are a private organization and can set their own rules and by-laws as does the NHL with its $1 million fining power given to Bettman.

It does seem a little odd for Ray to be suing however since I am sure his counsel is not doing this pro bono (for free). The players are receiving $10,000 per month but in January 2005 that sum drops to $5000 per month according to various reports.

 

[Pepper]

The question is, did Ray file his retirement papers to PA (which I believe players do when they officially retire) or not. What he has said in an interview is irrelevant.

 

[Buffaloed]

The question is, did Ray file his retirement papers to PA (which I believe players do when they officially retire) or not. What he has said in an interview is irrelevant.

Although Ray is an unrestricted free agent and has hinted his career is over, he never filed retirement paperwork with the NHLPA.

It seems like a unilateral decision by the NHLPA to deem him retired. The NHLPA doesn't have a leg to stand on without the formal paperwork, unless the terms of eligibility for lockout benefits are misstated in the article. Ray also informally retired before last season, but because he didn't file papers, he was allowed to sign with Ottawa. If the papers are filed, the player has to sit out for a year. The NHLPA didn't deem him retired at that time so it's inconsistant to make that declaration at this time.
Ray's no slouch in business matters. He wasn't going to file those papers until he was sure he wouldn't get any offers.

 

[London Knights]

A better question is who would want Ray back. They guy lost it 3 years ago, let alone this past year. He played something like 50 games over the past 4 years.

 

[thinkwild]

Is Rob doing this because he needs the money? Is he broke and destitute and in need of it to butress the millions in savings accounts he has? Or like the players asking for what their worth, is he saying he deserves his fair share regardless of how much money he has?

Its not like a pension or unemployment insurance fund he has a right to because he paid in. Although even unemployment officers can bar you on discretionary grounds even if you meet the technical criteria.

Its a good point Buffaloed about him qualifying to sign with Ottawa as he wasnt officially retired, but I tended to think the same as London Knights. Who actually believes he would play again unless there were replacement players? In my mind, a reasonable person would deem him for all practical purposes retired, not to mention insubordinate.

Im a big fan of Rob Ray, and commend him for standing up and telling players to question the union and get answers and remember the union are working for the players. I even commend his stand that players shouldnt accept a salary cap because its not fair and there are other ways to do it. Even rayzor supports Goodenow and the unions basic principle.

But Rob, that time for reflection has past. The fight is on. yOUR expression is now in terms of secret ballot ratification of the key points you are paying yopur experts to negotiate.

You have the right to appeal the loss of strike pay within the system, but its hard for a casual observer not to suspect you have personal motives and agenda against Goodenow when you go to the courts. Now. Maybe now is not the time to be in mutiny. Not everyone likes being one of a collective in negotiations, but that is the price you pay. Perhaps once this over you should lead a call for decertification. But it is counter-productive to question command during the crisis.

The players will have their voice in a secret ballot when asked to ratify any deals. Once the majority has spoken, they have the right to discipline members acting contrary to the interest the majority has the right to demand. That is the price you pay for bargaining collectively. If you are unhappy with this, the fight isnt with Goodenow.

If enough players in a secret ballot reject Goodenow and the executives recommendations and opt to accept a deal or cross a line, that is fair too. And our problems will be solved as hockey will be back.

BUt I agree with Rob, it is their lives and careers at stake. Get informed and make your decision. If the union is leading you into a battle they cant persuade you to join, vote to accept the owners deal. The mechanisms are in place. Mutiny just makes you look bad.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

It seems like a unilateral decision by the NHLPA to deem him retired. The NHLPA doesn't have a leg to stand on without the formal paperwork, unless the terms of eligibility for lockout benefits are misstated in the article.

Dispensation of Lockout Fund monies are at the discretion of the union executive. It's an emergency nestegg, not an insurance plan.

Since the decision to issue cheques came well after the commencement of the lockout, and after Ray's comments, the union was well within its authority to set the terms and conditions of dispensation. An avowal to cross a picket line is reasonable grounds to deny such a payment.

 

[SENSible1*]

Dispensation of Lockout Fund monies are at the discretion of the union executive. It's an emergency nestegg, not an insurance plan.

Since the decision to issue cheques came well after the commencement of the lockout, and after Ray's comments, the union was well within its authority to set the terms and conditions of dispensation. An avowal to cross a picket line is reasonable grounds to deny such a payment.

We'll see what the courts have to say.

Looks good on the PA.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Although Ray is an unrestricted free agent and has hinted his career is over, he never filed retirement paperwork with the NHLPA.

It seems like a unilateral decision by the NHLPA to deem him retired. The NHLPA doesn't have a leg to stand on without the formal paperwork, unless the terms of eligibility for lockout benefits are misstated in the article. Ray also informally retired before last season, but because he didn't file papers, he was allowed to sign with Ottawa. If the papers are filed, the player has to sit out for a year. The NHLPA didn't deem him retired at that time so it's inconsistant to make that declaration at this time.
Ray's no slouch in business matters. He wasn't going to file those papers until he was sure he wouldn't get any offers.

I believe the one year requirement is part of the NHL rules not the NHLPA rules.

The NHLPA being a private organization can set what ever rules it wishes for eligibility even if they are unfair and the courts normally would not interfere. It depends upon what the NHLPA set as the qualifications to receive the stipend and even then there would be nothing to prevent them from retroactively ammending those rules.

 

[Accord]

Hopefully more players will follow Rob Ray's lead.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Hopefully more players will follow Rob Ray's lead.

Why? To (at best) look like a fool, (at worse) look like a back-stabbing weasel?

The only reason Rob Ray didn't officially retire was because he saw an opportunity for one last ride on the gravy train via a lockout handout. Then he stabbed Bob Goodenow in the back by announcing his intention to cross a picket line.

Rob Ray should have done some better retirement financial planning. Lord nows this lockout was on the radar for the last four years at least.

Good luck with the post-career broadcasting gig too, Ray. No self-respecting NHLPA member will ever appear on your show ever again. Might as well ring up the March Of Dimes people too. Tell 'em nobody's coming to your Rob Ray Annual Golf Classic. With luck, maybe they can line up another host.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

We'll see what the courts have to say.

Looks good on the PA.

The courts will throw this one out. This has all the earmarks of a nuisance suit of the type usually filed (often by both sides) in a labour dispute.

 

[Buffaloed]

Dispensation of Lockout Fund monies are at the discretion of the union executive. It's an emergency nestegg, not an insurance plan.
Since the decision to issue cheques came well after the commencement of the lockout, and after Ray's comments, the union was well within its authority to set the terms and conditions of dispensation.

The authority of the executive committee to set the terms for dispersal of emergency funds isn't in dispute. Ray is arguing that he does meet the terms published by the executive committee, hence there are no grounds for denial of benefits.

An avowal to cross a picket line is reasonable grounds to deny such a payment.

That's irrelevant to the legal case. It's not cited as cause for denial of benefits, nor has Ray been expelled or suspended by the union. The reason cited by the NHLPA in its letter to Ray is that he was deemed retired. The issue for the court to decide is whether the executive committee has the authority to declare a member retired when no formal retirement papers have been filed. The precedent is overwhelming that the decision to retire is at the sole discretion of the member.

If the union tries to expel or suspend Ray for his comments as a reason to deny benefits, that's an entirely different issue. Ray would be entitled to a hearing. In the US, public comments made by a member that are contrary to union policy are not grounds for expulsion. The member would have to actually cross a picket line.

It's ironic that the NHLPA is behaving heavy-handedly just like the NHL in this case, and the NHL has always lost when it uses that approach. What's really amusing is that Ray's attorney is going to use the letter of NHLPA's constitution and bylaws to put it to them, just as the NHLPA has done with the CBA to put it to the owners.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The authority of the executive committee to set the terms for dispersal of emergency funds isn't in dispute. Ray is arguing that he does meet the terms published by the executive committee, hence there are no grounds for denial of benefits.



That's irrelevant to the legal case. It's not cited as cause for denial of benefits, nor has Ray been expelled or suspended by the union. The reason cited by the NHLPA in its letter to Ray is that he was deemed retired. The issue for the court to decide is whether the executive committee has the authority to declare a member retired when no formal retirement papers have been filed. The precedent is overwhelming that the decision to retire is at the sole discretion of the member.

If the union tries to expel or suspend Ray for his comments as a reason to deny benefits, that's an entirely different issue. Ray would be entitled to a hearing. In the US, public comments made by a member that are contrary to union policy are not grounds for expulsion. The member would have to actually cross a picket line.

It's ironic that the NHLPA is behaving heavy-handedly just like the NHL in this case, and the NHL has always lost when it uses that approach. What's really amusing is that Ray's attorney is going to use the letter of NHLPA's constitution and bylaws to put it to them, just as the NHLPA has done with the CBA to put it to the owners.

Are you guys sure why Ray hasn't been given benefits?
Or is this still all speculation?

 

[SENSible1*]

Are you guys sure why Ray hasn't been given benefits?
Or is this still all speculation?

Perhaps reading the post you were responding to would be helpful.

Ray's attorney is basing the lawsuit on the reason cited in the NHLPA's correspondence with Ray.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Perhaps reading the post you were responding to would be helpful.

Ray's attorney is basing the lawsuit on the reason cited in the NHLPA's correspondence with Ray.

Dude, do you have to obnoxious about everything?

I am simply asking a quesiton.
I still haven't seen any response from the PA. And I'm wondering if people are trying this issue on the board having only one side of the story.

It's a question.

And, according to your answer, we are still seeing ONE SIDE to the story. Which makes this entire argument pretty empty

 

[vanlady]

The NHLPA are basing there decision on an article in The News dated Nov 1. Here is an part of the article

"If I was a younger guy, it would be something I would do," Ray said Nov. 1. "There's no way I could play again. What I said (about crossing the line) was a far-fetched pipe dream. It'll never happen. I'll never play again."

These comments were made after his original quotes about crossing the line. Unfortunately if they pay Rob Ray what about Michael Renberg and Adam Oats and several other players being deemed retired? Adam Oates has made it clear in the press he intended to retire, has he filed the paperwork? Michael Renberg is playing hockey in Sweden now, should he receive lockout pay?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The NHLPA are basing there decision on an article in The News dated Nov 1. Here is an part of the article

"If I was a younger guy, it would be something I would do," Ray said Nov. 1. "There's no way I could play again. What I said (about crossing the line) was a far-fetched pipe dream. It'll never happen. I'll never play again."

These comments were made after his original quotes about crossing the line. Unfortunately if they pay Rob Ray what about Michael Renberg and Adam Oats and several other players being deemed retired? Adam Oates has made it clear in the press he intended to retire, has he filed the paperwork? Michael Renberg is playing hockey in Sweden now, should he receive lockout pay?

Do you know this for a fact? Is this the PA's claim?
Or are you trying to make an educated guess?

 

[vanlady]

Do you know this for a fact? Is this the PA's claim?
Or are you trying to make an educated guess?

Here read this


http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20041231/1021732.asp

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Here read this


http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20041231/1021732.asp

thanks ...
Good info.
Still, I think I'll wait until this goes to court before I really make up my mind.

 

[txomisc]

Why? To (at best) look like a fool, (at worse) look like a back-stabbing weasel?

The only reason Rob Ray didn't officially retire was because he saw an opportunity for one last ride on the gravy train via a lockout handout. Then he stabbed Bob Goodenow in the back by announcing his intention to cross a picket line.

Rob Ray should have done some better retirement financial planning. Lord nows this lockout was on the radar for the last four years at least.

Good luck with the post-career broadcasting gig too, Ray. No self-respecting NHLPA member will ever appear on your show ever again. Might as well ring up the March Of Dimes people too. Tell 'em nobody's coming to your Rob Ray Annual Golf Classic. With luck, maybe they can line up another host.

you realize this makes no sense? he was gonna retire but he didnt so he can collect lockout pay and then he decided to tell everyone he would play as a scab so he could lose his lockout pay even though he had no intention of playing as a scab or otherwise? WTH man?!??! you realize how moronic that sounds?

 

[PecaFan]

So if I say to a friend "I'm thinking about quitting my job", you can show up for work Monday and your boss had given your job to someone else without severance pay? I don't think so. Just stating something publicly is not the same thing as following official protocols.

I don't think the NHLPA is going to win this one. There are set specific circumstances when guys are retired, and Ray does not meet them from what I can see. I have a hard time believing the NHLPA has in writing "If said player makes a public statement indicating a possibility of retirement, active membership in the NHLPA shall be revoked immediately".

Note that Messier isn't on this list. And that's a guy who had a freakin' centre ice retirement ceremony.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

So if I say to a friend "I'm thinking about quitting my job", you can show up for work Monday and your boss had given your job to someone else without severance pay? I don't think so.

What if your comments are carried by wire services and printed/broadcast in over 600 outlets?

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

you realize this makes no sense? he was gonna retire but he didnt so he can collect lockout pay and then he decided to tell everyone he would play as a scab so he could lose his lockout pay even though he had no intention of playing as a scab or otherwise? WTH man?!??! you realize how moronic that sounds?

Not at all. The contradictory comments sink him further. What's to make of Rob Ray now? Certainly he's lost credibility with his peers. Too bad really. To think a former King Clancy Award winner is reduced to weaseling. What's his take after he pays his lawyer? (Ooops, maybe he's not the one paying his lawyer!).