Two quick Impasse questions

[thinkwild]

That CBA is expired, hence all standard player contracts are void unless recognized in a new agreement. The players gave up the right to personal services contracts in exchange for the benefits of the contracts that union membership would bring. They don't have individual contractual rights in that system. The CBA determines how contracts are honored and structured. That's why a new CBA could mandate a 24% rollback in salaries to existing contracts. If a member doesn't want to give up 24% he has no say in it if thats what the NHL and NHLPA agree to.

Yes, if the players agreed in negotiations. But if its unilaterally implemented, I would of thought the law would be there to protect the contracts being unilaterally terminated.

If the players decertify, what is the status of existing unfulfilled contracts? I guess then they forgo them?

 

[kdb209]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
In the US it's unconstitutional to prevent someone from resigning from a union at any time including during a lockout or strike. Whether they have paid dues is irrelevant to the case law.

Supreme Court Decision: PATTERN MAKERS v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985)

So if anyone chose to resign they could theoretically play?

I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but a quick read says that that case is not really applicable here - it concerned employees rights to quit a union to avoid union sanctions (fines) after they crossed a picket line during a strike.

Yes, an employee may quit a union at any time, but that does not remove him from the bargaining element the union represents. There are many cases where employees are not part of a union but are treated as union members for all intents and purposes for employment - they are just not recognized by the union and do not get any benefits directly from the union itself. A case in point - Brendan Donnelly (and all the other MLB replacement players who crossed in '95) are not MLBPA members, get no $'s from the PA endorsement funds, etc, but are still treated like any other player in the union as far as MLB is concerned.

All the articles I've read and knowledgable posts here have said the same thing - in the No-Impasse-Replacement-Player-Case a lockout still exists and no current union member (defined as stated above - anyone who has been player within the last two years) can be used as a replacement. That is the whole rationale behind the league's exploring a partial lockout - lifting the lockout (on players earning < $1M) to allow some players to play as replacements. If a player could just quit the PA in order to play in the face of a lockout, there would be no need for the legally questionable tactic of a partial lockout.

 

[Buffaloed]

The reason Bob didn't mention it IMO is it would NEVER HAPPEN really .. Even if the player did it .. The NHL would not touch him as that could get them in big trouble in the future .. Why would they risk it ?? ..The have chosen an option to avoid legal issues and then they start signing players that drop their union ..

He didn't mention it because he didn't consider it. As I pointed out the NHL has no choice but to offer those players contracts. It's not an option. I'm waiting for you to substantiate your claim that hiring players who quit the union would be an unfair labor practice. It's clear that refusing to hire these players would create serious legal issues based on discriminating against former union members. The laws are black and white on that subject. The NHL has no choice but to offer them employment.

I'm also still waiting for you to back up your claim that players can't quit the union. Have you conceded that point or are you still claiming you were taken out of context?

How many players are you suggesting will be committing career suicide by doing it.?? The would forever be out of the union and no AGENT could represent them as then they would suffer possible NHLPA decertification of their agent licences ..

More than one would and that's all that's relevant. You've made some strong claims on issues and failed to back them up. I'm not going to be distracted by all this gibberish about how other players or agents would feel. Smoke and mirrors won't detract from the central issues. You're being held accountable for your statements:

1)

Originally Posted by The Messenger
NO .... Any player that has paid Union fees in the past year or 2 is considered a NHLPA member .. Even UFA who may not currently be paying union fees are still members ..

2)

Originally Posted by The Messenger
NO NHLPA player could be a replacement player even if he wanted to .. Even if a Player resigned from the Union .. That act would be a violation of bargaining in GOOD FAITH ..and the NHLPA would file UNFAIR LABOUR practices with the courts immediately. Why would the NHL risk this if it intention in the first place is to avoid court action and if they wanted to move to impasse in the future this act would never pass the NLRB at a future time ..

I'm not interested in specious arguments that attempt to cloud the issue. If you can support these claims provide some links. If you can't support it, admit that you were wrong. And if you can't do that, don't waste our time by posting in this thread.

 

[txomisc]

That is not correct .. No employee in any industry can force an Employer to hire him .

Not sure where this confusion came from??

If you quit your job .. Could you go to a competitor and demand they hire you?? ..and if they don't then you feel you could sue them ..

Sue who ?? .. If you are no longer a Union member of your own choice you can't sue them the NHLPA.. and since you are no longer a member and have no contract with the NHL ..

How could you sue the NHL ?? and which team you are a UFA .. Sue them for what amount ??.

You don't see Kariya and Palffy suing the NHL, teams signed other low level UFA players before as its their option who they sign ..not obligated to sign best player but what they can afford and who they chose to

I am really missing what you are saying here.

Could you please explain this .. Who would sue Who ??

The NHLPA member who left the NHLPA in order to sign with the NHL could sue the NHL if the NHL refused to sign the player based on his previous cba stance. Since these players are considered the best, the only legit reasons he would not be signed are
A) being discriminated against
B) asking for way too much money

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

If the players decertify, what is the status of existing unfulfilled contracts? I guess then they forgo them?

Good question. Many legal questions, for sure. Instead of a can of worms, maybe it's opening a barrel full o' them!

I'm looking at the nhl.com's page displaying the Standard Player's Contract. Clause 5 regards the team/league "reducing operations."

My guess is that there could possibly be a mutually agreed-upon buy-out, arbitrated by a third party if necessary.

 

[Mess]

He didn't mention it because he didn't consider it. As I pointed out the NHL has no choice but to offer those players contracts. It's not an option. I'm waiting for you to substantiate your claim that hiring players who quit the union would be an unfair labor practice. It's clear that refusing to hire these players would create serious legal issues based on discriminating against former union members. The laws are black and white on that subject. The NHL has no choice but to offer them employment..

How exactly are you backing this statement up ,, The NHL is forced to hire ..

Paul Kariya is a UFA .. He has no NHL contract and no team owns his NHL rights ..

While a valid CBA was still in place no team signed him ...

NOW you are claiming if Kariya gave up his union membership during a labour dispute the NHL would have no choice but to hire him and infact are obligated to.

Which team and for how much ???

I really don't see how you can support this claim ..

I'm also still waiting for you to back up your claim that players can't quit the union. Have you conceded that point or are you still claiming you were taken out of context?..

Can a player quit the union .. Sure he can .. he can go play in Europe and not pay his union dues and he would eventually no longer be a NHLPA member ..

I am saying that he would not do it IMO ..as I can see no advantage .. I feel the NHL would not touch him with a 10 foot pole .. The whole purpose of Using the Non-IMPASSE route would be to force the NHLPA into signing a new CBA .. This option by nature is not designed to get players to cross as the lockout is still in effect ..

I believe zero will chose this option but hundreds might put pressure on the PA to accept a deal or let them vote on a NHL CBA proposal offer .. This what this option is intended to do..

If the NHL wants NHLPA players to cross a picket line and prove a point then it will go the IMPASSE route and let them cross and come back to work ..

I'm not interested in specious arguments that attempt to cloud the issue. If you can support these claims provide some links. If you can't support it, admit that you were wrong. And if you can't do that, don't waste our time by posting in this thread.

I already posted Bob Mackenzie link ... It says ...

Number three is to play an 82-game schedule next season using exclusively replacement players, that is, any players outside of the NHLPA membership who want to play under whatever terms and conditions the NHL decides to set. A collective bargaining agreement would not have to be in place. In fact, no NHLPA member, even if he wanted to, would be permitted by the league to cross a line and play in this circumstance.

This is pretty definitive and this is not just reported by Bob Mackenzie other publications commented on the same thing ..

You are the one that believes that this HUGE loophole of dropping your union and being signed by the NHL exists ..

I have never heard nor read anything like that .. anywhere .. Perhaps I am mistaken .. Please provide me with a link every one I have read is the same as the one above ..

Bob also describes a IMPASSE and Partial Lockout .. What is the purpose of those options if you feel the NHL can accomplish eveything in this ??

Here is another read that explains the process .. Starting on page 6 of 17 with the STATEMENT .. The National Labour Relations Act makes it an unfair labour practice for an employer to "interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to bargain collectively and the right to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining .. read on ..

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/0responses/2000-0359.resp.pdf

Your suggestion in fact violates numerous of the above items "interfere with" , "Coerce", "bargain Collectively"

 

[PecaFan]

He didn't mention it because he didn't consider it. As I pointed out the NHL has no choice but to offer those players contracts. It's not an option. I'm waiting for you to substantiate your claim that hiring players who quit the union would be an unfair labor practice. It's clear that refusing to hire these players would create serious legal issues based on discriminating against former union members. The laws are black and white on that subject. The NHL has no choice but to offer them employment.

I know what you're saying, but you're overstating it. Clearly, if the entire league stayed away from them on masse, and not a single one received an offer, it would look suspicious, and could lead to problems.

But if some were hired, some others got offers that they refused to sign because they were too low, etc, there'd be no problem.

 

[Mess]

I know what you're saying, but you're overstating it. Clearly, if the entire league stayed away from them on masse, and not a single one received an offer, it would look suspicious, and could lead to problems.

But if some were hired, some others got offers that they refused to sign because they were too low, etc, there'd be no problem.

Here is a direct quote from the NY Post

"The league Board of Governors, meanwhile, will meet on April 20 to explore options for a "replacement" league in detail. News of the meeting became public yesterday through another of the NHL's infamous, well-timed leaks. While the league is considering several possible replacement options, the most likely involves using only those players who are not members of the NHLPA; who are not on NHL reserve lists; and whose draft rights are not owned by NHL clubs". .

http://www.nypost.com/sports/22588.htm

This makes it even clearer ... That the NHL wants nothing to do with any player remotely connected to the NHLPA in anyway to avoid "Legal Challenges" .. IMO

Drafted players or not on Reserve lists ...These guys are not Union members yet even ..They become a members when they sign contracts and play their first game in the NHL game.

Unless somehow we are talking about something different in this thread .. but this is my understanding anyways ..

 

[Kickabrat]

Yep. There is nothing the NHLPA could do to stop one of its members from crossing the line. Well nothing other than try to pressure him not to. They can't legally stop anyone from doing it.

Very true. The most time honored tradition in sports is to invoke the equivalent of a shunning! Either that or they can send Tie Domi after the scab.

 

[SENSible1*]

A link to a Brooks article as a source of factual information?

Too funny.

 

[txomisc]

How exactly are you backing this statement up ,, The NHL is forced to hire ..

Paul Kariya is a UFA .. He has no NHL contract and no team owns his NHL rights ..

While a valid CBA was still in place no team signed him ...

NOW you are claiming if Kariya gave up his union membership during a labour dispute the NHL would have no choice but to hire him and infact are obligated to.

Which team and for how much ???

I really don't see how you can support this claim ..

Can a player quit the union .. Sure he can .. he can go play in Europe and not pay his union dues and he would eventually no longer be a NHLPA member ..

I am saying that he would not do it IMO ..as I can see no advantage .. I feel the NHL would not touch him with a 10 foot pole .. The whole purpose of Using the Non-IMPASSE route would be to force the NHLPA into signing a new CBA .. This option by nature is not designed to get players to cross as the lockout is still in effect ..

I believe zero will chose this option but hundreds might put pressure on the PA to accept a deal or let them vote on a NHL CBA proposal offer .. This what this option is intended to do..

If the NHL wants NHLPA players to cross a picket line and prove a point then it will go the IMPASSE route and let them cross and come back to work ..




I already posted Bob Mackenzie link ... It says ...

Number three is to play an 82-game schedule next season using exclusively replacement players, that is, any players outside of the NHLPA membership who want to play under whatever terms and conditions the NHL decides to set. A collective bargaining agreement would not have to be in place. In fact, no NHLPA member, even if he wanted to, would be permitted by the league to cross a line and play in this circumstance.

This is pretty definitive and this is not just reported by Bob Mackenzie other publications commented on the same thing ..

You are the one that believes that this HUGE loophole of dropping your union and being signed by the NHL exists ..

I have never heard nor read anything like that .. anywhere .. Perhaps I am mistaken .. Please provide me with a link every one I have read is the same as the one above ..

Bob also describes a IMPASSE and Partial Lockout .. What is the purpose of those options if you feel the NHL can accomplish eveything in this ??

Here is another read that explains the process .. Starting on page 6 of 17 with the STATEMENT .. The National Labour Relations Act makes it an unfair labour practice for an employer to "interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to bargain collectively and the right to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining .. read on ..

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/0responses/2000-0359.resp.pdf

Your suggestion in fact violates numerous of the above items "interfere with" , "Coerce", "bargain Collectively"

" In fact, no NHLPA member, even if he wanted to, would be permitted by the league to cross a line and play in this circumstance." You have posted this same quote many times. All it says is no NHLPA member could play. If someone quit the NHLPA they are not an NHLPA member so this quote no longer applies to them. The quote basically states that you can not play under this scenario and be an NHLPA member. Once again, the player who left the union would no longer be a member and therefore would be able to play. Would you like me to state it a third way?

 

[kdb209]

" In fact, no NHLPA member, even if he wanted to, would be permitted by the league to cross a line and play in this circumstance." You have posted this same quote many times. All it says is no NHLPA member could play. If someone quit the NHLPA they are not an NHLPA member so this quote no longer applies to them. The quote basically states that you can not play under this scenario and be an NHLPA member. Once again, the player who left the union would no longer be a member and therefore would be able to play. Would you like me to state it a third way?

You keep saying that if they quit the union, they would be allowed to play even in the face of a lockout. Do you have any definitive facts to back that up?

Yes, there was one cite here that showed that a union member could quit a union during a work stoppage - actually it held that union rules which prevented a worker from quitting the union were invalid. But that case only dealt with whether or not a union could sanction (fine) a worker for crossing a picket line to work during a strike.

So a player may be able to quit the PA, but that would not necessarily make him eligable to work in the face of a lockout. There are instances of workers, who are not part of a union, still being treated by the employer the same as union workers in the same bargaining unit.

Example 1: Former MLB replacement players. They are not members of the MLBPA (don't receive shares from the PA liscencing deals, etc), but are still treated the same as other players as far as MLB is concerned.

Example 2: Workers in a job covered by a union CBA who choose not to join the union (for philosophical or other reasons). They may not be forced to join the union, but they are still covered by the terms of the CBA, and are treated by the employer the same as card carrying union members. The union can force them to pay union dues - or at least those parts of the dues that cover the administrative costs of the union (since they do derive the benefits of the union as a negotiating entity) but may exclude the part of dues that goes to political purposes.

So, again it is not clear that a player who quits the PA would be able to play as a non-Impasse replacement player. If they are still legally considered as part of the bargaining unit, union member or not, they are likely considered still locked out. Maybe someone more knowledgable could pipe in here (Wetcoaster?).

Also, even if a player wanted to quit the PA and voluntarily play in the face of a lockout, and even if he legally could (which I think is doubtful), would the NHL even let him. It would open the league up to charges of bad faith - inducing a worker to quit the union, etc. The league would have to prove that it had not contacted with the player, made no offer or incentive to convince him to do so. Even the appearence of such a bad faith possibility would probably be enough to disuade the league, especially if it was still keeping the possibility of Impasse open.

Again, if a player could just quit the PA and play during a lockout, tell me what's the point then of the NHLs consideration of a partial lockout - lifting the lockout for players earning under $1M - as a means to get NHL players to be able to play as replacements in the non Impasse lockout scenerio.

 

[txomisc]

You keep saying that if they quit the union, they would be allowed to play even in the face of a lockout. Do you have any definitive facts to back that up?

Yes, there was one cite here that showed that a union member could quit a union during a work stoppage - actually it held that union rules which prevented a worker from quitting the union were invalid. But that case only dealt with whether or not a union could sanction (fine) a worker for crossing a picket line to work during a strike.

So a player may be able to quit the PA, but that would not necessarily make him eligable to work in the face of a lockout. There are instances of workers, who are not part of a union, still being treated by the employer the same as union workers in the same bargaining unit.

Example 1: Former MLB replacement players. They are not members of the MLBPA (don't receive shares from the PA liscencing deals, etc), but are still treated the same as other players as far as MLB is concerned.

Example 2: Workers in a job covered by a union CBA who choose not to join the union (for philosophical or other reasons). They may not be forced to join the union, but they are still covered by the terms of the CBA, and are treated by the employer the same as card carrying union members. The union can force them to pay union dues - or at least those parts of the dues that cover the administrative costs of the union (since they do derive the benefits of the union as a negotiating entity) but may exclude the part of dues that goes to political purposes.

So, again it is not clear that a player who quits the PA would be able to play as a non-Impasse replacement player. If they are still legally considered as part of the bargaining unit, union member or not, they are likely considered still locked out. Maybe someone more knowledgable could pipe in here (Wetcoaster?).

Also, even if a player wanted to quit the PA and voluntarily play in the face of a lockout, and even if he legally could (which I think is doubtful), would the NHL even let him. It would open the league up to charges of bad faith - inducing a worker to quit the union, etc. The league would have to prove that it had not contacted with the player, made no offer or incentive to convince him to do so. Even the appearence of such a bad faith possibility would probably be enough to disuade the league, especially if it was still keeping the possibility of Impasse open.

Again, if a player could just quit the PA and play during a lockout, tell me what's the point then of the NHLs consideration of a partial lockout - lifting the lockout for players earning under $1M - as a means to get NHL players to be able to play as replacements in the non Impasse lockout scenerio.

If you read the thread, you will see that I asked a question and got two difference answers. One answer, I got from on person, another I got from a couple people. I happen to be more inclined to believe the answer that I got more than once. The people I got it from seem a bit more credible than the guy who gave me the other answer, he first claimed I took his statement out of context, then claimed a quote said from Bob Mckenzie proved his theory when clearly it did not. I would certainly love to see what Wetcoaster and maybe Mudcrutch have to say about this.

 

[Mess]

If you read the thread, you will see that I asked a question and got two difference answers. One answer, I got from on person, another I got from a couple people. I happen to be more inclined to believe the answer that I got more than once. The people I got it from seem a bit more credible than the guy who gave me the other answer, he first claimed I took his statement out of context, then claimed a quote said from Bob Mckenzie proved his theory when clearly it did not. I would certainly love to see what Wetcoaster and maybe Mudcrutch have to say about this.

A source indicated the NHL is looking at three main possibilities with replacement players:

-- The league opens shop with replacement players who are not NHLPA members, and not permitting NHLPA members to cross over; this would therefore not be a legal impasse situation;

-- The league negotiates a new system to impasse and implements it unilaterally and on this basis NHLPA members would be welcome to cross-over;

-- The league ends the lockout for only a segment of the NHLPA -- for example, all players who earned under $1 million last season -- and invite them to play under a new system; but higher-paid NHLPA players remained locked out.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050317_140153_5372

 

[txomisc]

A source indicated the NHL is looking at three main possibilities with replacement players:

-- The league opens shop with replacement players who are not NHLPA members, and not permitting NHLPA members to cross over; this would therefore not be a legal impasse situation;

-- The league negotiates a new system to impasse and implements it unilaterally and on this basis NHLPA members would be welcome to cross-over;

-- The league ends the lockout for only a segment of the NHLPA -- for example, all players who earned under $1 million last season -- and invite them to play under a new system; but higher-paid NHLPA players remained locked out.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050317_140153_5372

Are you being intentionally obtuse? For the one millionth time, the part you keep bolding does not say a player could not leave the union and play. It says NHLPA members could not play. It does not say NHLPA members could not leave the NHLPA thus no longer being NHLPA members and playing. Do you understand teh difference?

 

[Weary]

A source indicated the NHL is looking at three main possibilities with replacement players:

-- The league opens shop with replacement players who are not NHLPA members, and not permitting NHLPA members to cross over; this would therefore not be a legal impasse situation;

This likely would not fly with the NLRB because it uses union status to determine who is locked out and who can be a replacement player. Offering work as replacements only to those who resigned their union membership is probably not smart.
From Schenk Packing Co., 301 NLRB 487:

2. By locking out employees who were union members beginning April 28 and conditioning their reinstatement on resignation from the Union,...the Respondent has discriminated in regard to hire, tenure, and terms and conditions of employment in order to discourage membership in the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.​

-- The league negotiates a new system to impasse and implements it unilaterally and on this basis NHLPA members would be welcome to cross-over;

After impasse and implementation there is nothing to cross-over. It's only if the union strikes in response that there is a picket line to cross.

-- The league ends the lockout for only a segment of the NHLPA -- for example, all players who earned under $1 million last season -- and invite them to play under a new system; but higher-paid NHLPA players remained locked out.

Good luck on that one. Although the NLRB gave the green light in a couple of recent cases to selective lockouts, neither case really backs up selectivity based on salary.

 

[kdb209]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
A source indicated the NHL is looking at three main possibilities with replacement players:

-- The league opens shop with replacement players who are not NHLPA members, and not permitting NHLPA members to cross over; this would therefore not be a legal impasse situation;

This likely would not fly with the NLRB because it uses union status to determine who is locked out and who can be a replacement player. Offering work as replacements only to those who resigned their union membership is probably not smart.
From Schenk Packing Co., 301 NLRB 487:

2. By locking out employees who were union members beginning April 28 and conditioning their reinstatement on resignation from the Union,...the Respondent has discriminated in regard to hire, tenure, and terms and conditions of employment in order to discourage membership in the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.​

After impasse and implementation there is nothing to cross-over. It's only if the union strikes in response that there is a picket line to cross.

Good luck on that one. Although the NLRB gave the green light in a couple of recent cases to selective lockouts, neither case really backs up selectivity based on salary.

No. Actually this decision makes it quite clear (and answers the question that txomisc were wondering and disagreed about) - In case of a lockout, all locked out workers, whether they quit the union or not, could not be used as replacements.

It was ruled illegal to discriminate between Union members and those members who resigned from the union.

It did not say anything on the subject of discriminating between members of the union and temporary workers who were never members of the union.

Even though the employer when it announced that it would allow former union members to work as temporary replacement workers during the lockout went to great lengths to be seen to not be encouraging workers to resigh from the union:

During this lockout, the following conditions apply: (1) no Union members will be employed as replacements; (2) we are only entitled to use temporary non-union employees as replacements during the lockout, and (3) if locked out Union employees become non-union members of the labor market, it is possible for them to be hired temporarily for the duration of the lockout. However, it is important to understand that we cannot and are not by this letter encouraging you one way or the other with respect to resigning from the Union. Nor are we in any way promising you a job in the event that you do resign from the Union. The question as to whether you remain members of the Union or resign is totally yours to make and we are not taking a position one way or the other. We are simply reviewing the existing facts in light of the applicable national labor law. We trust you understand our position in that respect.

The NLRB ruled that the discriminatory affect of even allowing resigned union members to work as replacements was a violation.

We conclude, therefore, that an unavoidable effect and, hence, unstated purpose of the lockout was to discourage unit employees’ membership in the Union by denying employment to those who maintained that status. Accordingly, the Respondent’s conduct violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1), as alleged in the complaint.

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/301/301-68.pdf

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

So... this is the way I'm reading it...

Non-Impasse replacement players, being the temporary-est of temporary players, would be hencely terminated forwith under either the implementation of a legal impasse or with the declaration of a union strike. In either case, line-crossers could then commence their line-crossing.

If this is indeed the case, why would a NHLPA member (contemplating resignation) want to play under such a scenario, let alone challenge the league in court? Any non-impasse contract would contain clauses acknowledging its very temporary nature.

Given such a scenario would it not be unpalatable even for the most zealous line-crossing contemplater?

 

[Weary]

No. Actually this decision makes it quite clear (and answers the question that txomisc were wondering and disagreed about) - In case of a lockout, all locked out workers, whether they quit the union or not, could not be used as replacements.

Are you saying that the following is valid conduct?:

-- The league opens shop with replacement players who are not NHLPA members, and not permitting NHLPA members to cross over; this would therefore not be a legal impasse situation;​

It isn't because it uses union membership to not only determine who will be locked out, but also to determine who will be used as replacement workers. It indicates that a player who leaves the union would either not be locked out or would be allowed to become a replacement. Allowing locked out workers who are no longer members of the union to return is exactly what Schenk disallowed.

 

[Mess]

So... this is the way I'm reading it...

Non-Impasse replacement players, being the temporary-est of temporary players, would be hencely terminated forwith under either the implementation of a legal impasse or with the declaration of a union strike. In either case, line-crossers could then commence their line-crossing.

If this is indeed the case, why would a NHLPA member (contemplating resignation) want to play under such a scenario, let alone challenge the league in court? Any non-impasse contract would contain clauses acknowledging its very temporary nature.

Given such a scenario would it not be unpalatable even for the most zealous line-crossing contemplater?

I think if you had 6 months to live ONLY and your Doctor said live it up ..​

​

but even then in this scenario I am not sure a person would not spend their time Sky Diving and Running with the Bulls and Deep Sea Fishing ..​

​

I agree with you .. Why would any player even consider this .. In this NON-IMPASSE situation ..There is no CBA , no rules , Players have to negotiate their own TEMP contracts and very likely be making 20 bucks a day type wages ..​

​

Also its very likely that once a New CBA is in place either by the courts or agreed upon you OUT as a Replacement player .. Currently all 700+ players are members of the NHLPA who play in the League .. That membership is MANDATORY not OPTIONAL (I believe) ..​

​

So if a player resigns from the UNION he is basically making a decision to play in the NHL only during these Lockout/Strike time and then move on to something else .. IMO .. What is the Motivation ??​

Why would a player do this, is the big Question even if they could ?

 

[kdb209]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
No. Actually this decision makes it quite clear (and answers the question that txomisc were wondering and disagreed about) - In case of a lockout, all locked out workers, whether they quit the union or not, could not be used as replacements.

Are you saying that the following is valid conduct?:

-- The league opens shop with replacement players who are not NHLPA members, and not permitting NHLPA members to cross over; this would therefore not be a legal impasse situation;​

It isn't because it uses union membership to not only determine who will be locked out, but also to determine who will be used as replacement workers. It indicates that a player who leaves the union would either not be locked out or would be allowed to become a replacement. Allowing locked out workers who are no longer members of the union to return is exactly what Schenk disallowed.

Well it depends exactly what is meant by: The league opens shop with replacement players who are not NHLPA members, and not permitting NHLPA members to cross over. This short quote doesn't specifically address the issue of former NHLPA members (ie those who resign during the lockout, of which there are now a grand total of zero).

You could read the quote as referring to NHLPA members in the current tense (ie all members today) or to some future tense (after some members have hypothetically resigned) and get two different meanings.

If the league allows former PA members to work as replacements, then it is pretty clear that that is a violation of Schenk.

If the league doesn't allow former PA members, but allows only non union players (not currently represented by the PA), it is not a violation of Schenk.

Let's not try to read too much into one snippet of a quote, but it's pretty safe to say thet the NHL (and their high priced lawyers) do understand the ramifications of Schenk.