Why are some posters so caught up in what's written and how it's interpreted in the CBA?
As a union rep, I've learned a couple of things about our agreement. First off, it doesn't cover everything. That would be impossible. There's always something new coming up that we have to deal with outside of what's been expressly written. Then it gets added to the agreement when it's time to renegotiate our contract (every 4 years for us).
Most clause in our contract can be interpreted more than one way. BUT, the law is clear that past-precedent becomes the interpretation. In other words, once both parties agree to interpret the clause a certain way, it becomes the same as if it were written that way. The only way to break from past-precedent is to negotiate it once the contract is up. For our union/company it's been that way in the courts... past-precedent is the same as written contract.
Finally, anything not covered on our contract falls into past-precedent. So once it gets handled a certain way, that becomes how it will always be handled, unless we negotiate it differently at contract time.
It's really simple guys. Even the NHL rule book has a second case book that tells officials how to interpret the rules and how exceptional cases were handled in the past. How hard can it be to make the logical leap that the CBA has some grey areas that have been tested and now have past-precedents that are guidelines for everyone. And those grey areas will be filled in at the next negotiations.
Edit: going to add that past-precedent (for our union/company) does't get written down into a second boot somewhere. It comes down to our guys (and the company execs) to remember how things where handled when the last time something similar came up. Once you remember, you prove it by looking into the files from that time and it becomes clear.
If the NHL doesn't inform every manager, every year, and everytime a team hires a rookie GM, then it's really only the experienced guys that know all the so called loop holes (past precedents)
