Originally Posted by kdb209
I don't know why I keep arguing with this poor mis-informed troll.
Under both US and (as far as I understand it) Provincial Labor law the expired CBA most definitely does NOT "means absolutely nothing today". It's terms remain in force until superceded by a new negotiated or imposed CBA. That was why the league was able to play an almost entire season in 1992 without any CBA in place.
And your argument that players under contract (and those under recent expired contracts) are not employees is equally completely off base. Players under contract are still employees and if the lockout were lifted would be required to complete the terms of their contracts (barring a PA strike). If they were not employees, they would have no legal standing to even be collectively negotiating with the NHL.
If players were not still employees (absent a CBA), then tell me why injured players on IR were still receiving medical care from their teams during the lockout and some players on IR were still even getting paid.
Just because they are temporarily working in another league during the lockout does not change their status as employees of the the NHL teams. It is perfectly legal for a locked out employee to seek employment elsewhere during the course of a lockout - and despite your ill informed protestations to the term, this is a lockout. If the lockout were lifted, and the PA voted to strike, those players under contract playing overseas would no longer be eligible to play there.
Your philosophical point that a new CBA can be a clean break from the past is valid, but your understanding of labor law leaves something to be desired.
In Canada both provincial and federal (yes there is federal) labour law has the same effect. The CBA exists during the term of the lockout but the obligation for the employer to pay and the employees to provide services are suspended.
In many cases negotiations go on with an expired CBA. In British Columbia the Registered Nurses went almost three years with an extended CBA and continued to operate under the previous CBA.
During the 1994 MLB dispute, the owners declared an impasse, imposed a CBA, used replacements and were on the way to opening the season when the NLRB intervened and set aside the impasse declaration and ordered the MLB owners to play for two years more under the previous CBA.
As you point out if disputes arise over such things as injured reserve status, they are dealt with under the terms of the CBA last in effect.