shveik said:I do not know if asking back the lockout compensation is an illegal labor practice. It very well could be. But there is one major snag to the NHL's position at this time. The NHLPA players are currently locked out. They can only be replacement players when and if the impasse is declared. So if asking for the money back is illegal by itself, IMO they would first to have a situation under which it is possible, and then actually *do it*. To put it short, saying that they might resort to unfair labor practices in the future IMO is not an unfair labor practice in itself. Otherwise NHLPA would have just as ridiculous case against the NHL with their idea of salary selective lockout. But I would like to hear what somebody with a bit of the labor law background thinks about it.
The Messenger said:But by the nature of a strike .. You are not really suppose to cross a Picket line .. The Picket line is in place because your Union is fighting for you ..
The strange part on my thinking is WHO is filing ... I could see a player filing it against his Union ie Rob Ray did by not receiving Lockout pay .. but this is the NHL filing a grievance on behalf of players that they are locking out currently forcing them to accept this pay in the first place ..
The NHL is looking after the owners, why would it file on behalf of the players is the strange part .. ?? What if the player himself decides he should repay the money??
Also .. the timing is strange ... Right now its just talk .. No player can cross so should this not be a possible issue down the road when valid .. ?? How can you file Unfair labour practices for something that hasn't happened ??
bcrt2000 said:these unfair labor practice charges are MUCH less likely to go in favour of the NHL than if the NHL goes to impasse which means its really a gauge of where the NLRB stands in relation to the NHL.
it would mean the NLRB favours the NHL (if they favour the NHL in the unfair labor accusations).
i thought you guys would be able to spell it out yourself
I sort of agree .. It sounds more like a fishing expedition to see what the NHLPA does and how players react .. Maybe nothing more then a ploy to test Union solidarity ??Taranis_24 said:It would be nice to see how the grievance is written. Don't know how it could be written to preventing the PA into forcing the players to return any money the players received the last 4 months or so. Maybe just trying to get a understanding what players may be available to them if they decide to go the replacement route, and in which format w/ or w/o NHLPA players.
bcrt2000 said:these unfair labor practice charges are MUCH less likely to go in favour of the NHL than if the NHL goes to impasse which means its really a gauge of where the NLRB stands in relation to the NHL.
it would mean the NLRB favours the NHL (if they favour the NHL in the unfair labor accusations).
i thought you guys would be able to spell it out yourself
nyr7andcounting said:It might work but it's clearly another blatant attempt by the NHL to break the union rather than come to a deal. What else could be better for the NHL in terms of breaking the union than a case against the PA where a lot of players will actually be rooting for the NHL to win, considering they want to keep the $?
On top of that, what players are really affected by paying back the 10k/month to the PA? The top paid players are not, and most of them won't be replacement players anyway. The players that would be affected by having to pay that money back are the low level players who need the money AND who would cross and become replacements. What better way to turn them against their own leadership than to have the NHL fight a case for them and make it easier for them to cross?
I don't have a problem if the PA makes them pay the money back and I don't think they will be charged with unfari practices...but it is a smart move by Bettman. It's clear the NHL wants to break the union before anything else, and going about it in this way is a lot safer than the rumor of them ending the lockout for players making less than 800k, or whatever it was.
The Messenger said:If the NHL is working with Union players going around the Union leadership to file a grievence ..That is probably a bigger UNFAIR Labour Practice Act then the idle threat at a Union meeting of returning a few thousand dollars in strike pay??
The Messenger said:If the NHL is working with Union players going around the Union leadership to file a grievance ..That is probably a bigger UNFAIR Labour Practice Act then the idle threat at a Union meeting of returning a few thousand dollars in strike pay??
The timing of it coming out on Easter "Good Friday", perhaps the most important religious holiday can't get the NHL any favourable Fan support !!!
hockeytown9321 said:Thats an abusrd argument. Its like saying Michael Jackson's lawyers want some evidence thrown out and if the judge agrees to it, that the judge is biased towards Jackson.
The Messenger said:If the NHL is working with Union players going around the Union leadership to file a grievance ..That is probably a bigger UNFAIR Labour Practice Act then the idle threat at a Union meeting of returning a few thousand dollars in strike pay??
The timing of it coming out on Easter "Good Friday", perhaps the most important religious holiday can't get the NHL any favourable Fan support !!!
djhn579 said:Where does the article mention that they are working with players when they filed this complaint?
djhn579 said:Where does the article mention that they are working with players when they filed this complaint?
blamebettman said:notice when this came out, right after the players meetings concluded.
the draft cancellation and now this lawsuit, I think the NHL may be getting desperate and angry. bettman is really under the pressure to end this thing NOW.
djhn579 said:Where does the article mention that they are working with players when they filed this complaint?
bcrt2000 said:well, they obviously must have some players ready to step forward and testify for their case otherwise they have a baseless argument
that being said, if a player does not trust their union anymore, then i don't see why its unfair for them to turn to the league for help.
a real offer? you're kidding right?djhn579 said:I doubt that the NHL is getting desperate. Angry? Probably. But then, they have probably been angry for a while...
This is just clearing the road so that they can move forward with replacement players when they decide to. It also sends a message to the union that if they don't come to the table with a real offer, they will get the NHL running without them.
If they were desparate, they would be relaxing their position. In my opinion, they are just sending the message that the PA needs to get serious...