Brooks: Contracts may not be expiring

[Weary]

Has a single player assigned to the minors complained about not being locked out with the NHLers instead? Koltsov went back to Russia, but that was fairly unrelated.

Alexander Semin went to play in Russia lieu of being assigned to the AHL. The Capitals responded by suspending him.

Any attempt to push the fact the rosters are undersized isn't likely to get very far. The old CBA is pretty much extinct now we have entered a lockout. The SPC specially allows teams to assign players, and the CBA is dead enough to be fairly worthless.

The BC law is written
"The term of a collective agreement may sometimes expire before a new agreement is reached between the employer and union. In such cases, the terms of the collective agreement remain in effect after its expiry date until either a new agreement is negotiated, a strike or lockout commences, or the union is decertified – whichever occurs first."

I'm not sure of the NRLB's exact position though.

In U.S. law the terms of the CBA remain in place until a new one is negotiated. That's actually the position the NHL should support. If not, all players not under contract could argue they are now unrestricted free agents.

The NHL and NHLPA worked on that and agreed on lists. I haven't seen the NHLPA disagree, since they know its good for their younger member to play and earn some money.

No. The NHL decided who was on the list and who wasn't. Initially they wouldn't even disclose the list to the NHLPA. It wasn't until the union took legal recourse that the NHL turned over the list.

From SPECTOR: Sides aren't any closer on foxsports.com:

It appears negotiations between the league and the union could take a nasty turn. According to a recent report in the Ottawa Sun, the NHLPA has filed an ''unfair labor practices'' charge with the U.S. National Labor Relations Board against the NHL for failing to provide a list of locked-out players.

There apparently was some confusion over which players were to be considered locked out by the league. When the union requested a list, the league cattily responded that, since the NHLPA's staff would continue working over the lockout, they'd have a better chance of compiling such a list than the league, which has laid off over 100 staff employees.​

If the NHLPA (and their backers here) wanted to be go after a more interesting point I'd target qualifying offers that won't get made this year making players UFAs. Then again, that'll be dealt with in any new CBA, so its moot.

Even more interesting is the plight of unsigned draftees from 2003. They would likely have a better chance at suing individually than players who already held NHL contracts.

 

[SENSible1*]

Even more interesting is the plight of unsigned draftees from 2003. They would likely have a better chance at suing individually than players who already held NHL contracts.

What are the relative odds of the PA allowing these unproven, non-NHLPA member, rookies to steal precious cap room from their members?

The PA will agree to the NHL teams retaining an opportunity to sign their draftees as part of the coming CBA. The last thing wants is for Carter, Richards and all signing big deals and taking money away from players who are just emerging from the entry level system.

 

[Jarqui]

You have your right to think that the longstanding NHL position on the contract term interpretation, which is to count the number of contract years, will not stop them from doing 180 degrees and asking for exactly opposite in the negotiations. I cannot be so sure about this, but I would not be totally surprised if it goes that way.

I think both parties will press for what is in their own best interests. If that means doing a 180, they'll do so. As it is up to them to negotiate the best scenario for themselves, whatever got decided in the past by an arbitrator or whatever the old CBA said is virtually meaningless. It’s a new day with a new deal.

He is trying to get everyone excited, but you are placing the standards of the research article on a newspaper column. That's just not a realistic expectation.

Their first duty to the public is to the truth. The truth of the matter is that Yashin & the past CBA are extremely unlikely to have any legal bearing on going forward. It may provide a little fodder for the barbs across the table but that’s about it.

What the new CBA will say on this issue has 100% weight on deciding this issue. The only way Yashin's decision or the old CBA wording survives is if the new wording in the new CBA allows it to survive. After what they've been through with Yashin, give us the odds on his breach of contract trying expire his deal surviving in the legal language in the new CBA.

As for dwelling on the past, that's all we freaking have right now. There is no new CBA, all we have is the old one! He is analyzing the current situation based on the only solid information available. Present murky state might or might not be cleared by the new CBA (after all, Bettman was trying to get the number of years contract interpretation into the old CBA, didn't happen), but we cannot know if and which way it will go without the crystal ball.

All that matters is the new CBA wording and the debate negotiating that. That’s an interesting discussion. Presenting notions of legal actions based upon old CBA decisions and old CBA wording as Brooks tried is frivolous nonsense and a waste of everyone’s time.

 

[Mess]

From this Fox Article :

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/3569728

Another problem area could be the league's apparent insistence that player contracts, except for injured players, for the cancelled 2004-05 season not carry over into next season.

According to the New York Post, however, the PA doesn't wish to consider that an option, and could look to the 2000 arbitration decision on Alexei Yashin's contract with the Ottawa Senators as a precedent.

Back in 1999-2000, Yashin, then the captain of the Senators, was in the final year of his contract and coming off 90-plus point season and a Hart trophy nomination. He and his agent staged a holdout in hopes of getting either a new deal from the Sens or forcing the club to trade him to a team that would sign him to one.

The Senators refused to meet the demands, and after Yashin held out for the entire season, the matter went before an arbitrator in 2000, who ruled that Yashin had to complete the final year of his contract.

The Post suggests the PA might argue that, since players must complete the full terms of their contract, then those that ran through the canceled season should be allowed to carry forward into the next NHL season under the new CBA.
The paper also suggests the default clause in the standard player contract might be utilized by players to ensure their contracts carry over, particularly by players who were slated to be in the final year of their contracts last season.

Seems like this issue is on the table for discussion and that the NHL does not want contracts extended but the PA does due to the lockout .. Unless that is just the writers interpretation of the Brooks article ..

If its really true that the NHLPA is pushing for all former existing contracts to be extended 1 year as a result of the lockout , and the NHL is obviously against that ..
That makes sense really from a bargaining point of view .. Goodenow trades unsigned player rights + RFA now not getting Qualifying offers, and even some UFA that teams do not want to lose ... For his players to get their guaranteed contracts fulfilled ..

A team like Philly is trading rights extended for Richards and Carter and RFA Gagne who's contract will expire soon ... for honouring the contracts of Leclair and Amonte .. Tough spot if June and July are approaching and you don't want all these players falling into this great uncertainty abyss ..

 

[Sammy*]

From this Fox Article :

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/3569728




Seems like this issue is on the table for discussion and that the NHL does not want contracts extended but the PA does due to the lockout .. Unless that is just the writers interpretation of the Brooks article ..

If its really true that the NHLPA is pushing for all former existing contracts to be extended 1 year as a result of the lockout , and the NHL is obviously against that ..
That makes sense really from a bargaining point of view .. Goodenow trades unsigned player rights + RFA now not getting Qualifying offers, and even some UFA that teams do not want to lose ... For his players to get their guaranteed contracts fulfilled ..

A team like Philly is trading rights extended for Richards and Carter and RFA Gagne who's contract will expire soon ... for honouring the contracts of Leclair and Amonte .. Tough spot if June and July are approaching and you don't want all these players falling into this great uncertainty abyss ..

Wow. Thats a newsflash. The PA thinking that they have a barganing chip & they are going to try & use it. Well, too bad thats a world of difference than a chip that really has currency.
I guess the owners should counter with their "chip" that their is no free agency until the age of 40.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Nope. There is no such term in the old CBA. The only reference I find to player assignments and roster minimums is the clause that allows a team to do emergency recalls during the last 26 days of the season.

So, please cite and point out this term. It is not listed in "ARTICLE 13 - Waivers and Loans of Players to Minor League Clubs; Waiver Draft"

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba/article13.html

nor in any other section I can find of the CBA.

From section 16.4:

There
shall be no reduction of the required minimum Playing Rosters of
the Clubs, except in case of emergency, below eighteen skaters
and two goalkeepers.​

From section 16.5:

A player under contract to a Club shall be deemed to be on the Club's Playing Roster during the regular season or playoffs only if he is assigned to the Club or if he is assigned by the Club temporarily to a minor league club for conditioning purposes under Section 13.8 hereof. During training camp, such player shall be deemed to be on the Club's Playing Roster only if he had been on the Club's Playing Roster after the trading deadline in the preceding season on other than an emergency recall basis.​

But the Club's Playing Roster is defined as such during the regular season and playoff only - not during the off season. It has not been uncommon in the past for a team to have well below 18 skaters and 2 goalies under contract in the off season due to unsigned RFAs, etc.

They were not eligible to play in the NHL in 2004-05 because of the lockout. No one was eligaible to play in the NHL in 2004-05 because of the lockout. Therefore it was not a selective lockout - the NHL lockout itself does not discriminate against any class of worker and would be permissible under the tests of American Ship Building.

I think you're misusing the word eligible. If the players were not eligible, then they wouldn't be able to play if there weren't a lockout.

I was just pointing out that for the 2004-05 season they were not treated any differently than any other player with respect to their ability to play in the NHL (ie no one was eligible), therefore the lockout was not by definition a selective lockout.

And as I've said before, all these transition issues will be dealt with in a new CBA which will short circuit any potential legal challenges.

And the fact that there could be legal challenges should be evidence that the legality of the NHL's actions isn't 100% certain.

Nothing is ever 100% certain, and this is America - you always have the right to sue for anything. Having any reasonable chance of prevailing, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.

 

[me2]

No. The NHL decided who was on the list and who wasn't. Initially they wouldn't even disclose the list to the NHLPA. It wasn't until the union took legal recourse that the NHL turned over the list.

From SPECTOR: Sides aren't any closer on foxsports.com:

It appears negotiations between the league and the union could take a nasty turn. According to a recent report in the Ottawa Sun, the NHLPA has filed an ''unfair labor practices'' charge with the U.S. National Labor Relations Board against the NHL for failing to provide a list of locked-out players.

There apparently was some confusion over which players were to be considered locked out by the league. When the union requested a list, the league cattily responded that, since the NHLPA's staff would continue working over the lockout, they'd have a better chance of compiling such a list than the league, which has laid off over 100 staff employees.​

The NHLPA was annoyed at the slowness of the list, not the actual list. They haven't made any great show of being anti-list, in fact they asked for it so they could plan. It seems like a dead issue.

Even more interesting is the plight of unsigned draftees from 2003. They would likely have a better chance at suing individually than players who already held NHL contracts.

Suing for what? Damages? Free agency? They are free to sign where they want outside the NHL, which is paying or playing, so damages are out. Free agency, that will be dealt with in the new CBA. So even if they win UFA status before a new CBA is signed, the new CBA will likely force them back into the RFA box.

 

[shveik]

Their first duty to the public is to the truth. The truth of the matter is that Yashin & the past CBA are extremely unlikely to have any legal bearing on going forward. It may provide a little fodder for the barbs across the table but that’s about it.

What the new CBA will say on this issue has 100% weight on deciding this issue. The only way Yashin's decision or the old CBA wording survives is if the new wording in the new CBA allows it to survive. After what they've been through with Yashin, give us the odds on his breach of contract trying expire his deal surviving in the legal language in the new CBA.

All that matters is the new CBA wording and the debate negotiating that. That’s an interesting discussion. Presenting notions of legal actions based upon old CBA decisions and old CBA wording as Brooks tried is frivolous nonsense and a waste of everyone’s time.

See, again you are referring to the new CBA, which just doesn't exist. How is something that doesn't exist, and which might or might not resolve the issue, be more relevant than the consideration of the current status quo?

Suppose you are more interested in discussing what the new CBA *might* bring as the resolution of this issue, and think that discussing the present situation is not interesting to you. Fine, but calling somebody names for not catering to your interests?

 

[Weary]

Suing for what? Damages? Free agency? They are free to sign where they want outside the NHL, which is paying or playing, so damages are out. Free agency, that will be dealt with in the new CBA. So even if they win UFA status before a new CBA is signed, the new CBA will likely force them back into the RFA box.

Suing to obtain terms in their entry-level contracts consistent with existing CBA. Without a new CBA, the argument goes the old CBA holds force. Since they are a third party with regard to the negotiations, they could argue that the only terms that are valid are the ones in the current CBA.

 

[Jarqui]

See, again you are referring to the new CBA, which just doesn't exist. How is something that doesn't exist, and which might or might not resolve the issue, be more relevant than the consideration of the current status quo?

Suppose you are more interested in discussing what the new CBA *might* bring as the resolution of this issue, and think that discussing the present situation is not interesting to you. Fine, but calling somebody names for not catering to your interests?

Here's an example from one of the best writers in the business:
http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp
The truth is the fate of all these players, from Crosby to Carter to Richards to any of the restricted free agents to any player who had a contract this season, will be determined as part of the CBA negotiations. For lack of a better term, it's called transition. It will be a significant element of the negotiations above and beyond the NHL and Players' Association agreeing on a new economic system.

Somehow Bob found a way to calmly discuss this issue and inform his readers with an opinion that I think you'll find is very "accurate" without misleading them and getting them all excited about old legal stuff that is extremely unlikely to apply. No references are made to Yashin or the old standard players contract in the article but he still managed to put together a simple, straightforward article that should calm a bunch of people down who got all worked up because Brooks spewed some more misleading nonsense.

McKenzie’s focus has consistently been to add value to his readers by trying to carefully and accurately inform. Brooks focus has consistently been to try to incite a discussion riot on frivolous, poorly founded positions to bring attention to himself as is the case here.

 

[shveik]

Here's an example from one of the best writers in the business:
http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp
The truth is the fate of all these players, from Crosby to Carter to Richards to any of the restricted free agents to any player who had a contract this season, will be determined as part of the CBA negotiations. For lack of a better term, it's called transition. It will be a significant element of the negotiations above and beyond the NHL and Players' Association agreeing on a new economic system.

Somehow Bob found a way to calmly discuss this issue and inform his readers with an opinion that I think you'll find is very "accurate" without misleading them and getting them all excited about old legal stuff that is extremely unlikely to apply. No references are made to Yashin or the old standard players contract in the article but he still managed to put together a simple, straightforward article that should calm a bunch of people down who got all worked up because Brooks spewed some more misleading nonsense.

McKenzie’s focus has consistently been to add value to his readers by trying to carefully and accurately inform. Brooks focus has consistently been to try to incite a discussion riot on frivolous, poorly founded positions to bring attention to himself as is the case here.

McKenzie's position is more neutral, but as much as you like what he wrote, he is not totally correct. He is saying that the fate of the unsigned 2003 picks *will* be determined in these negotiations, but actually the fate *might* or, if you prefer a more strong wording, *should* be determined .... There is nothing that makes a bulletproof transition agreement a requirement for going forward with the new CBA. It would save a whole lot of grief and lawyer fees, so it is a preferrable route, but it is not the only one. So in fact McKenzie is, as you put it, "misleading" the readers. Brooks is confrontational in that piece, but it looks like he has the facts straight.

 

[Sammy*]

Brooks is confrontational in that piece, but it looks like he has the facts straight.

 

[Jarqui]

McKenzie's position is more neutral, but as much as you like what he wrote, he is not totally correct. He is saying that the fate of the unsigned 2003 picks *will* be determined in these negotiations, but actually the fate *might* or, if you prefer a more strong wording, *should* be determined .... There is nothing that makes a bulletproof transition agreement a requirement for going forward with the new CBA. It would save a whole lot of grief and lawyer fees, so it is a preferrable route, but it is not the only one. So in fact McKenzie is, as you put it, "misleading" the readers. Brooks is confrontational in that piece, but it looks like he has the facts straight.

If you read the article and restrict yourself to examining the quote out of context, McKenzie did state things like "Well, I'm no lawyer. But my instincts tell me all this free agency talk is probably the product of us all having a little too much time on our hands.
...
it would be shocking if any of those players get to pick and choose what NHL club they'd like to play for"

McKenzie doesn't discount the possibility of something he is saying not coming to pass but he does inform us of what is very likely to take place.

Given the visibility of the Yashin problem, the chance that they screw that up in revised wording in a new CBA is far more slim than some inadvertent error that they overlook in the new CBA wording. It has to be on their checklist to resolve. If anything were to arise out of the new CBA, it will most likely be something outside of the present language and outside of the past legal history that presents itself as grounds for a grievance for arbitration which must be based upon the new CBA wording.

A legal issue is even more remote because of the existence of a CBA. Most of the time, the courts send them back to settle their dispute with arbitration covered by the CBA.

Just like one can sue anybody for anything (including a player suing his union), one can raise a grievance virtually about anyone and anything related in a CBA. Whether they would be successful is another matter dependent on the issue raised. But we don't need to say that every single time we have a discussion or make a statement about anybody or anything because that option is always there.

 

[shveik]

If you read the article and restrict yourself to examining the quote out of context, McKenzie did state things like "Well, I'm no lawyer. But my instincts tell me all this free agency talk is probably the product of us all having a little too much time on our hands.
...
it would be shocking if any of those players get to pick and choose what NHL club they'd like to play for"

McKenzie doesn't discount the possibility of something he is saying not coming to pass but he does inform us of what is very likely to take place.

Let me rephrase it. He informs us on what *he thinks* is likely to take place. Which is an opinion, not a factual statement. He says it would be shocking if those players were to choose which club to play for. As shocking as cancelling a whole season for the first time in history of major sports?

Given the visibility of the Yashin problem, the chance that they screw that up in revised wording in a new CBA is far more slim than some inadvertent error that they overlook in the new CBA wording. It has to be on their checklist to resolve. If anything were to arise out of the new CBA, it will most likely be something outside of the present language and outside of the past legal history that presents itself as grounds for a grievance for arbitration which must be based upon the new CBA wording.

I do not think they screwed up the wording in the former CBA, because the wording simply wasn't there! They went on Ziegler testimony about an expired CBA to decide Yashin's case, not on actual CBA active at the time, because the active CBA was of no help. And it is not like they forgot about it, Bettman tried to get it in, but it just did not make it into the CBA.

A legal issue is even more remote because of the existence of a CBA. Most of the time, the courts send them back to settle their dispute with arbitration covered by the CBA.

Just like one can sue anybody for anything (including a player suing his union), one can raise a grievance virtually about anyone and anything related in a CBA. Whether they would be successful is another matter dependent on the issue raised. But we don't need to say that every single time we have a discussion or make a statement about anybody or anything because that option is always there.

Sure the option is always there, and it should be ok to discuss the merits of such a case, don't you think? (Brooks is off the hook) Just as it is ok not to meticulously outline all avenues the matters could take (McKenzie is off the hook)

Kudos for a post without a shot at Brooks

 

[Jarqui]

Let me rephrase it. He informs us on what *he thinks* is likely to take place. Which is an opinion, not a factual statement. He says it would be shocking if those players were to choose which club to play for. As shocking as cancelling a whole season for the first time in history of major sports?

I think many predicted the possibility of the season being canceled long before the lockout so it didn't come as a giant shock to those many. It would be a much, much greater shock if all teams lost all their draft picks and RFAs as a result of agreement between the two parties in a new CBA.

I do not think they screwed up the wording in the former CBA, because the wording simply wasn't there!

If one missed covering something like that knowing in advance that it was an issue and the result from doing that is the Yashin arbitration ... you screwed up by leaving out the wording or by not getting it resolved in the first place.

They went on Ziegler testimony about an expired CBA to decide Yashin's case, not on actual CBA active at the time, because the active CBA was of no help. And it is not like they forgot about it, Bettman tried to get it in, but it just did not make it into the CBA.

And as the NHLPA claimed after the decision, the arbitrator screwed up considering Ziegler because from the current CBA: This CBA, together with all Exhibits hereto, supersedes and replaces all prior CBA's and Memoranda of Understanding between the parties.

I think you can count heavily on that wording in the new deal which parks concerns of phrases in the old standard players contract and the Yashin decision because they're gone forever unless the two parties want them to remain. You'd once again need two screws up: on the wording and the arbitrator to reach the old deal.

Sure the option is always there, and it should be ok to discuss the merits of such a case, don't you think? (Brooks is off the hook) Just as it is ok not to meticulously outline all avenues the matters could take (McKenzie is off the hook)

Kudos for a post without a shot at Brooks

The chances of what McKenzie was talking about being relevant to the issue are about 99+% because it must take place for a deal to happen.

The chances of the Yashin decision or the wording of the old CBA standard players contract surviving causing the sort of legal action Brooks discussed and being relevant to the issue is something like less than 1% because you'd need a string of errors on an issue very dear to both parties that will receive significant scrutiny before getting the CBA signed.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by shveik
They went on Ziegler testimony about an expired CBA to decide Yashin's case, not on actual CBA active at the time, because the active CBA was of no help. And it is not like they forgot about it, Bettman tried to get it in, but it just did not make it into the CBA.

And as the NHLPA claimed after the decision, the arbitrator screwed up considering Ziegler because from the current CBA: This CBA, together with all Exhibits hereto, supersedes and replaces all prior CBA's and Memoranda of Understanding between the parties.

And just because the PA claimed after the decision that Holden screwed up in considering Zeigler era rulings does not make it so. Remember Yashin appealed and an Ontario Court upheld the decision.

Have you actually read Holden's ruling and his analysis.

The issue of full performance was not addressed in the new CBA. Yes there was an effort to get some language, but both sides agreed to the status quo.

Remember the CBA is not the be all and end all of agreements between the league and the PA.

ARTICLE 30
NHL Constitution and Bylaws, League and Club Rules

30.1. Constitution and Bylaws. Subject to Section 30.3, the NHL, each Club and each player shall be bound by the provisions of the League Rules. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and said League Rules, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern. A copy of the League Rules, and all amendments thereto, shall be available at the office of each Club and shall be sent to the NHLPA.

League Rules is defined here as:

"League Rules" means the Constitution and Bylaws, resolutions, rules, and regulations of the NHL (other than this Agreement) and/or any official interpretations of any of them.

From a post I made in another thread;

I searched and found the text of Lawrence Holden's arbitration ruling:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/alumni/reunion2005/documents/HoldoutsinSports.pdf

Holden's ruling is Exhibit 1 in that paper.

I was basing my original assumptions on what I had read elsewhere and the basic tenet of contract law that you cannot use breach of contract to your advantage. This argument was used by the league:

Quote:
The Club underscores the importance of this case to it by pointing out that in bilateral negotiations each party assumes certain risks, and that if players can default upon their obligations, the risk becomes one way rather than two way with potentially adverse consequences for all concerned. The Club argues that once a player enters into a binding contract, the player should have as much of an obligation to fulfill it as a club has. The Club asks why should a player obtain the benefits of free agency without fulfilling his contractual obligations. The Club cites opinions from the outside world which support its view of this case.

However, reading Holden's analysis, he does not rely on this reasoning in his ruling.

Instead he relied on previous league rulings and bylaws from the Zeigler / Stein era, including corespondance with the PA

Quote:
The correspondence follows. Sam Simpson of the Association initially wrote to Gil Stein of the League as follows: "I have the following scenarios: "

1. A player playing out his option and who decides to leave the club in the middle of the season, does his contract expire the following July 1 and become a free agent subject to the rules of 9A? "

...

Gil Stein's response was as follows: "I respond to your two stated scenarios as follows: *369 "

1. The scenario describes a player who has played only half of the full season remaining on his contractual obligation, but has refused to perform the other half. Applying the principal (sic) that a player cannot become free of his contractual obligation to play for a club by failing to perform it, he would not become a free agent on the following July 1. Obviously where less than a full season is owed, the question will then arise whether he would become a free agent in the middle of the following season or have to wait until the following July 1.

...

While evidence of policy arising under prior League and Association administrations should be carefully scrut inized, I find no sound reason to discount the efficacy of the evidence provided by former President Ziegler's testimony and the Simpson-Stein correspondence. ... Therefore, the testimony of former President Ziegler and the Simpson-Stein correspondence satisfactorily establishes what the existing policy was [FN8], and that the Association was on notice as to such policy. Also, there is no evidence that the Association expressed any objection to such policy during the time frame covered by the above evidence.

Holden upheld the leagues contention that these previous league rulings were not superceded by the 1995 CBA, but that they still existed as the "status quo".

Quote:
While the parties did rework the entire structure of free agency in the 1994-95 negotiations, they did not rework remedial consequences in the event of player refusal to serve a full contract term. In fact, as this opinion makes clear, the parties during the 1994-95 bargaining chose to go with the status quo in terms of full performance requirements. In sum, then, the foregoing reveals that the existing policy at the time of the 1995 negotiations was one of full performance, and that the parties' intent in the 1995 negotiations was to leave the status quo unchanged.

The previous rulings on which Holden's decision were based were pretty one sided in terms of performance - explicitly calling out the case of a holdout player. It is unclear whether those same rulings could be used to butress the case for non-performance under the lockout scenerio.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Remember the CBA is not the be all and end all of agreements between the league and the PA.

If not then the player who is contesting the CBA would be suing his own union as well as the NHL.

 

[Jarqui]

And just because the PA claimed after the decision that Holden screwed up in considering Zeigler era rulings does not make it so. Remember Yashin appealed and an Ontario Court upheld the decision.

They didn't uphold Holden's literal decision. They ruled something to the effect that Yashin was quickly barred from any judicial relief in the case because he didn't follow technicalities required under the prevailing CBA. The decision had little, if anything, to do with Holden's reasoning. Holden's ruling was flawed in specifics in my opinion and that of the NHLPA but final as an arbitrator. I think Holden wound up in the right place but seriously question the logic of how he got there.

Have you actually read Holden's ruling and his analysis.

Yes and again recently - in the last couple of weeks.

Remember the CBA is not the be all and end all of agreements between the league and the PA.

And then you contradict yourself by quoting the very CBA clause that contradicts you ??:
"30.1. Constitution and Bylaws. Subject to Section 30.3, the NHL, each Club and each player shall be bound by the provisions of the League Rules. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and said League Rules, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern."

That does say CBA > League Rules
- which is not what you are telling us above

And you provided this definiton of league rules:
"League Rules" means the Constitution and Bylaws, resolutions, rules, and regulations of the NHL (other than this Agreement) and/or any official interpretations of any of them.

I can't interpret it any other way. The CBA governs the "rules".

 

[kdb209]

And then you contradict yourself by quoting the very CBA clause that contradicts you ??:
"30.1. Constitution and Bylaws. Subject to Section 30.3, the NHL, each Club and each player shall be bound by the provisions of the League Rules. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and said League Rules, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern."

That does say CBA > League Rules
- which is not what you are telling us above

And you provided this definiton of league rules:
"League Rules" means the Constitution and Bylaws, resolutions, rules, and regulations of the NHL (other than this Agreement) and/or any official interpretations of any of them.

I can't interpret it any other way. The CBA governs the "rules".

Yes, it is clearly stated that the CBA takes precedence over League Rules if there is a conflict. But in this case (at least according to Holden's analysis) there was no conflict - the CBA was silent on the subject of full performance (and the record of the negotiations indicated an agreement on keeping the status quo) therefore the League Rules came into play.

 

[Jarqui]

Let me get this straight:

Remember the CBA is not the be all and end all of agreements between the league and the PA.

So what "agreements between the league and the PA" supercede or govern their CBA ?

 

[kdb209]

Let me get this straight:

Originally Posted by kdb209
Remember the CBA is not the be all and end all of agreements between the league and the PA.

So what "agreements between the league and the PA" supercede or govern their CBA ?

Other agreements do not supercede the CBA - in fact there is specific language in the CBA that makes it quite clear - the much quoted Article 30:

30.1. Constitution and Bylaws. Subject to Section 30.3, the NHL, each Club and each player shall be bound by the provisions of the League Rules. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and said League Rules, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern.

But the CBA does not necessarily cover all of the facets of league and player issues. If the CBA is silent on an issue (as it was in the case of full performance of contracts in the Alexei Yashin dispute), other "League Rules" may apply.

If the CBA was the only governing document, there would be no need for the CBA to refer to and uphold the validity of other "League Rules".