NHL files unfair labor practice against NHLPA to NLRB

[Buffaloed]

Get back to the original topic ( NHL files unfair labor practice against NHLPA to NLRB) now please. The issue of replacement players is discussed in other threads. It's gone far enough in this thread.

 

[mooseOAK*]

All right I phrase it this way for you ..

How many years ago now has it been since the flames had a 2nd line of Chris Clark, Clarke Wilm and Jeff Shantz.??

If you check up you will see the Wilm and Shantz have not been Flames for at least 3 full years already ... at the time the Flames where in the midst of that 7 year missing the Playoff Drought ..when they last it did employ that line ..

So not sure that is a pleasant memory for a Flames fan .. or why it should be used as a good thing as your example here ..

All he was trying to point out was that the Flames were able to draw 15,000 fans to a team with not very good players in response to people who said no one would want to watch replacements.

 

[shveik]

Huh? I have no idea what your trying to say.

Can you rephrase that in a more grammically-correct setense so its at least partially understandable?

I am going to assume you are talking to me. Worst case, I end up repeating myself.

My point is that threatening to do something is usually less severe violation than actually doing it. So a threat to ask for the money back is order of magnitude smaller issue than actually saying "give back the money". On top of that, at this time there is no way for the players to make a decision that this threat is supposed to influence.

 

[Phanuthier*]

I am going to assume you are talking to me. Worst case, I end up repeating myself.

Actually, it was to The Messenger who seems to have deleted his posts.

 

[Hanson Brothers]

Does anybody else feel that NHL is doing more to the players than their own union? NHL has not presented 24 percent wage drop, has been more realistic with their offers and now this?

 

[pepty]

The most interesting thing about this move is the timing.Why was this done,and the draft cancelled, just as the Players Association was about to present their counter offer?Does it seem likely that it was because the NHL wanted to come to an honourable settlerment with the PA?

I think its pretty clear that the NHL is not bargainng in good faith and never planned to have a season this year,especially considering the fact that some of the owners who are driving this process had so few players signed that they would have been hard pressed to ice a team if, despite their best efforts, the season had been saved.

Going with replcement players is a very risky move and will leave the job only half done and rinks around the league half empty.Perhps the NHL feels that fans are so angry at the players and their big salaries that the NHL will allways have a free ride in public opinion. That seems to be the case so far,but it doesnt mean those same fans will buy up seasons tickets to watch replacement players.

Both sides have inexplicably backed away when a deal seemed imminent. Perhaps both Bettman and Goodenow have promised absolute victory to their respective sides,something that they haven't been able to deliver, but, having come this far and inflicting such damage on the game, feel they cant go back.

For both men their careers and reputations are on the line,not just the jobs they presently hold.Would even the NBA rehire Bettman now as he is blamed by sports and business publications alike for his disastrous mishandling of this labour dispute?

The only thing that will save his career at the point is complete victory. That is what he seems determined to deliver,even if the NHL is ruined for a generation.

 

[djhn579]

The most interesting thing about this move is the timing.Why was this done,and the draft cancelled, just as the Players Association was about to present their counter offer?Does it seem likely that it was because the NHL wanted to come to an honourable settlerment with the PA?

I think its pretty clear that the NHL is not bargainng in good faith and never planned to have a season this year,especially considering the fact that some of the owners who are driving this process had so few players signed that they would have been hard pressed to ice a team if, despite their best efforts, the season had been saved.

Going with replcement players is a very risky move and will leave the job only half done and rinks around the league half empty.Perhps the NHL feels that fans are so angry at the players and their big salaries that the NHL will allways have a free ride in public opinion. That seems to be the case so far,but it doesnt mean those same fans will buy up seasons tickets to watch replacement players.

Both sides have inexplicably backed away when a deal seemed imminent. Perhaps both Bettman and Goodenow have promised absolute victory to their respective sides,something that they haven't been able to deliver, but, having come this far and inflicting such damage on the game, feel they cant go back.

For both men their careers and reputations are on the line,not just the jobs they presently hold.Would even the NBA rehire Bettman now as he is blamed by sports and business publications alike for his disastrous mishandling of this labour dispute?

The only thing that will save his career at the point is complete victory. That is what he seems determined to deliver,even if the NHL is ruined for a generation.

What is the legal definition of bargaining in good faith?

 

[SENSible1*]

Yet another masterful turn of the screw by Bettman.

I loved the fact that they got an agent to mention the threat of the second filing re: decertification of agents. It points out to the PA that this will come down the pipe if the PA continues to strong arm the agents and shows the players the natural conflict of interest between the PA and the agents.

In this game of hardball, Bettman is taking Goodenow to the cleaners.

Hope the PA executive enjoyed their stay at Pebble Beach. Things are about to get a whole lot more difficult in their lives.

 

[JohnnyB11]

The most interesting thing about this move is the timing.Why was this done,and the draft cancelled, just as the Players Association was about to present their counter offer?Does it seem likely that it was because the NHL wanted to come to an honourable settlerment with the PA?

I think its pretty clear that the NHL is not bargainng in good faith and never planned to have a season this year,especially considering the fact that some of the owners who are driving this process had so few players signed that they would have been hard pressed to ice a team if, despite their best efforts, the season had been saved.

Going with replcement players is a very risky move and will leave the job only half done and rinks around the league half empty.Perhps the NHL feels that fans are so angry at the players and their big salaries that the NHL will allways have a free ride in public opinion. That seems to be the case so far,but it doesnt mean those same fans will buy up seasons tickets to watch replacement players.

Both sides have inexplicably backed away when a deal seemed imminent. Perhaps both Bettman and Goodenow have promised absolute victory to their respective sides,something that they haven't been able to deliver, but, having come this far and inflicting such damage on the game, feel they cant go back.

For both men their careers and reputations are on the line,not just the jobs they presently hold.Would even the NBA rehire Bettman now as he is blamed by sports and business publications alike for his disastrous mishandling of this labour dispute?

The only thing that will save his career at the point is complete victory. That is what he seems determined to deliver,even if the NHL is ruined for a generation.

You don't seriously think a bona fide offer (at least a different offer from before) was about to come from the NHLPA, do you???? At this point in time????

 

[Mess]

Yet another masterful turn of the screw by Bettman.

I loved the fact that they got an agent to mention the threat of the second filing re: decertification of agents. It points out to the PA that this will come down the pipe if the PA continues to strong arm the agents and shows the players the natural conflict of interest between the PA and the agents.

In this game of hardball, Bettman is taking Goodenow to the cleaners.

Hope the PA executive enjoyed their stay at Pebble Beach. Things are about to get a whole lot more difficult in their lives.

Goodenow said the NHLPA doesn't have a policy regarding agents whose clients might choose to become replacement players in September.

Last November, after a meeting with agents and the NHLPA, there were rumours that agents could face decertification if their NHL clients became replacement players.

"There has been no formal policy," Goodenow said. "I think there's a lot of sentiment among the agents and players on the issue but no formal policy.

"We know that could be a possibility down the road if they [NHL owners] choose to go that route. It's in the future and not being dealt with at the present time."


http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2005/03/02/Sports/shanahan050302.html

 

[Mess]

Actually, it was to The Messenger who seems to have deleted his posts.

You were talking about events that occurred in the 2001 season and are not relevant to the discussion in this thread regarding the Complaint the NHL has filed with the NLRB.

 

[kdb209]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
I've heard that players without a contract could probably get out of the NHLPA and become replacement players as well. This would have to be clarified in court though, but it's certainly something the NHL owners have thought about.

"We will hire you if you quit the union?" I would not be surprised if there are already plenty of cases declaring this tactic an unfair labor practice.

Search these threads for Schenk Meat Packing - the NLRB has already ruled on this.

If you are locked out, you cannot get around the lockout by quitting the union. The mere fact that an employer was willing to hire an ex-union member as a replacement was ruled an unfair labor practice - an inducement to a worker to quit the union.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Search these threads for Schenk Meat Packing - the NLRB has already ruled on this.

If you are locked out, you cannot get around the lockout by quitting the union. The mere fact that an employer was willing to hire an ex-union member as a replacement was ruled an unfair labor practice - an inducement to a worker to quit the union.

Hockey isn't a meat packing factory though. Take Irbe, why is he a member of the union? After all, he's not an NHL player and when play resumes he sure won't receive any contract offer.

In the ECHL, there is a union. Is Scott Gomez a member of the ECHL union since he plays there? Why would he be more an NHL union member than an ECHL union member?

The point is, players could argue that they should not be in the players union for various reasons, including the fact they don't have a contract (which means NHL could resume and they could still be out of a job), that they played in another league, etc.

 

[Frenzy31]

The most interesting thing about this move is the timing.Why was this done,and the draft cancelled, just as the Players Association was about to present their counter offer?

Where do you get the idea that the PA was going to come up with a counter offer? And how would this stop them from bringing up an offer? How does having or not having a draft prevent them from returning to the table? Basically it gets them to move forward, where the PA may have tried to use the Draft to put the screws to the owners.

The timing of both filings were to put pressure on the PA to make an offer while they were meeting or atleast come up with some concepts to share. Both filings let the PA know they are serious about going the replacement route - a 1st salvo if you will and they will have to act prior to the Board Meeting later this month.

 

[kdb209]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Search these threads for Schenk Meat Packing - the NLRB has already ruled on this.

If you are locked out, you cannot get around the lockout by quitting the union. The mere fact that an employer was willing to hire an ex-union member as a replacement was ruled an unfair labor practice - an inducement to a worker to quit the union.

Hockey isn't a meat packing factory though. Take Irbe, why is he a member of the union? After all, he's not an NHL player and when play resumes he sure won't receive any contract offer.

In the ECHL, there is a union. Is Scott Gomez a member of the ECHL union since he plays there? Why would he be more an NHL union member than an ECHL union member?

The point is, players could argue that they should not be in the players union for various reasons, including the fact they don't have a contract (which means NHL could resume and they could still be out of a job), that they played in another league, etc.

Yes, the NHL is not a meat packing plant, but the NLRB doesn't care - the same sets of labor laws (and NLRB decisions) apply. And in Schenk, the NLRB held that allowing workers who quit the union to work as replacements during a lockout had the unavoidable effect of encouraging workers to quit the union, a blatant violation of labor law.

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.

As far as who is considered an NHLPA member - IIRC, any current or former player who has had a signed contract within the last two years is considered a member of the union. Just because a player does not have a current contract, that does not mean is is not part of the union - otherwise every UFA would have to continually quit and rejoin. UFAs and other unsigned players have recognized themselves as being part of the PA by maintaining membership, paying dues, etc. There is a definitive list of recognized NHLPA members, and any recognized member of the union is now locked out and would be inelibible to be a replacement player under Schenk. If a player quit the union before the lockout started, he might have an argument, but any player who was an NHLPA member when the lockout started is stuck.

As for Scott Gomez and others playing in the ECHL, they are members of both the NHLPA and the PHPA (PA for AHL and ECHL) - there is nothing preventing someone from being a member of more than one union. This is true of all players normally playing in the ECHL or AHL on two-way contracts.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

Search these threads for Schenk Meat Packing - the NLRB has already ruled on this.

If you are locked out, you cannot get around the lockout by quitting the union. The mere fact that an employer was willing to hire an ex-union member as a replacement was ruled an unfair labor practice - an inducement to a worker to quit the union.

as much as it screw over the owners on the replacement player issue, it also screw over some nhlpa members. if the nhl goes the replacement player route and are willing to offer 800k (for example) average salary, im sure most fringe players will take it, but they cant because of this rule and are forced to remain lockout/strike with the other wealthier players who dont need the money. it is a lose-lose situation. all the more reason for both side to make a reasonable deal.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Search these threads for Schenk Meat Packing - the NLRB has already ruled on this.

If you are locked out, you cannot get around the lockout by quitting the union. The mere fact that an employer was willing to hire an ex-union member as a replacement was ruled an unfair labor practice - an inducement to a worker to quit the union.

as much as it screw over the owners on the replacement player issue, it also screw over some nhlpa members. if the nhl goes the replacement player route and are willing to offer 800k (for example) average salary, im sure most fringe players will take it, but they cant because of this rule and are forced to remain lockout/strike with the other wealthier players who dont need the money. it is a lose-lose situation. all the more reason for both side to make a reasonable deal.

That is the whole rationale behind the partial lockout scenerio that the league has mentioned as a possibility - lift the lockout for players earning less than $1M and then they would be eligible to play as replacements. However this approach is legally dubious - partial lockouts have been allowed in the past based on criteria like job classification (lock out one dept but not another) or geography (lock out one plant but not another), but not for workers doing the same jobs at the same locales based purely on an arbitrary salary cutoff. I'm sure if the league tries this, it will be challenged by the PA.

 

[Buffaloed]

Search these threads for Schenk Meat Packing - the NLRB has already ruled on this.

If you are locked out, you cannot get around the lockout by quitting the union. The mere fact that an employer was willing to hire an ex-union member as a replacement was ruled an unfair labor practice - an inducement to a worker to quit the union.

The NLRB isn't bound by the precedent of past rulings. The case you cite was ruled on by the NLRB in 1991. This NLRB could very well rule differently if that case was appealed or a similar one was presented. A good example of how the Bush NLRB operates: in 2000 the NLRB ruled unanimously that graduate students had the right to form a union. In July 2004 the Bush appointed NLRB overturned that decision by a 3-2 majority voting strictly along party lines.
NLRB Reverses NYU Decision on the Right to Organize for Teaching and Research Assistants