Two quick Impasse questions

[X-SHARKIE]

First.

1. Well the NHL likely win this legal battle and if they declared Impasse would it work? Would wee see the NHL in 2005-2006?

2. If the NHL declares impasse are all previous contracts thrown out the window? Like would the Sharks loose the rights to Patrick Marleau...ect.

Thanks

Click to read more...

 

[kdb209]

First.

1. Well the NHL likely win this legal battle and if they declared Impasse would it work? Would wee see the NHL in 2005-2006?

Well thats the $2.1B question. No one knows. There has been a lot of speculation on this board both ways.

If the league declares an impasse, there will be an NHL season in 2005-06. What it will look like is uncertain. The sequence of events would be:

1. NHL declares an impasse. It's last offer is used as the basis for a temporary CBA. Note that this is a temporary CBA which allows them to resume operations, and that a new permanent one still needs to be negotiated with the NHLPA.

2. The NHL ends the lockout and invites players to training camp.

3. The NHLPA will have to decide to accept the impasse CBA (unlikely) and vote to strike.

4. NHL teams hire replacement players (and any current NHL players who decide to cross the picket lines) to fill out their teams. There are many issues here - immigration law, provincial labor codes on replacement workers, etc.

5. The season begins with replacemet players under the terms of the temporary CBA.

6. The NHLPA will challenge the Impasse before the NLRB. If the NLRB upholds that an impasse did indeed exist and that both sides negotiated in good faith, the league can continue to operate under the Impasse CBA (while still being obligated to negotiate with the PA on a permanent one). If the NLRB rules against the league, all hell breaks loose - the Impasse CBA is thrown out and the old (pre-lockout) CBA may be re-instated, the league could be sued for damages, and the league could choose to re-lockout the players rather than re-open with the old CBA. This is what happened to baseball in '94 - they declared impasse, it was not upheld, they had tp pay damages and operate under the old CBA.

7. If the NLRB upholds the Impasse, the union could give in and sign a new permanent CBA, keep the strike going indefinitely, or use the nuclear option - decertification. If the NHLPA decertifies itself, the Impasse CBA goes out the window, along with all the terms that are illegal without a CBA - Salary caps, the draft, RFAs, arbitration. The players would all become UFAs after their contracts expire, but they would no longer have the protections offered by the CBA - qualifying offers, minimum salaries, guaranteed contracts, etc. Each team would have to independently negotiate with each player and players could sue for damages if any team or teams act in a way that violates anti trust law.

2. If the NHL declares impasse are all previous contracts thrown out the window? Like would the Sharks loose the rights to Patrick Marleau...ect.

Thanks

No. Players under contract are still under contract, they would just be on strike. The terms of free agency - age, qualifying offers, RFAs, arbitration, etc - would all be spelled out in the Imapsse CBA. Patty would either still be under contract (depending upon the term of his current contract - it is aging as the lockout/strike continues and will eventually expire) or the Sharks will retain his rights under the RFA terms of the Impasse CBA or he will be a UFA (in the unlikely case the UFA age drops a lot in the Impasse CBA).

Now, if the NHLPA decertifies, all bets are off. Every player would be a UFA at the expiration of his contract.

 

[Kickabrat]

.... If the NHLPA decertifies itself, the Impasse CBA goes out the window, along with all the terms that are illegal without a CBA - Salary caps, the draft, RFAs, arbitration. The players would all become UFAs after their contracts expire, but they would no longer have the protections offered by the CBA - qualifying offers, minimum salaries, guaranteed contracts, etc. Each team would have to independently negotiate with each player and players could sue for damages if any team or teams act in a way that violates anti trust law. ...........

Now, if the NHLPA decertifies, all bets are off. Every player would be a UFA at the expiration of his contract.

In this scenario why can't the replacement players form an NHL Replacement Player Assoc., and make it the bargaining agent for the replacement players, which should have no problems in signing the revised CBA since they were all willing to play under it?

 

[hockeytown9321]

First.

1. Well the NHL likely win this legal battle and if they declared Impasse would it work? Would wee see the NHL in 2005-2006?

2. If the NHL declares impasse are all previous contracts thrown out the window? Like would the Sharks loose the rights to Patrick Marleau...ect.

Thanks

The NHL's claim of impasse would be shaky at best. One way management can bargin in bad faith is therough deirect dealing, which is basically the circumvention of the union. Its clear that after the gag order was lifed the week before the cancellation, some members of mangaement did negotiate with players indivdually, bypassing the NHLPA executive. Most clear is the Pronger\Roenick\Iginla plan.

There are other arguable examples of the NHL bargaining in bad faith, but that one is the smoking gun, and according to the only person here with any real knowledge of law, is enough to have the NLRB rule against the NHL.

 

[Weary]

In this scenario why can't the replacement players form an NHL Replacement Player Assoc., and make it the bargaining agent for the replacement players, which should have no problems in signing the revised CBA since they were all willing to play under it?

If the union decertifies, there will be no replacement players. All the players would return to work. Then if the league tried to enforce things like restricted free agency or a salary cap, the players could sue.

 

[Kickabrat]

If the union decertifies, there will be no replacement players. All the players would return to work. Then if the league tried to enforce things like restricted free agency or a salary cap, the players could sue.

Why is it that only the NHLPA can represent the players? Once they de-certify, can't the players form a new Association (call it NHLRPA if you will) to act on their behalf?

 

[Mess]

Well thats the $2.1B question. No one knows. There has been a lot of speculation on this board both ways.

If the league declares an impasse, there will be an NHL season in 2005-06. What it will look like is uncertain. The sequence of events would be:

1. NHL declares an impasse. It's last offer is used as the basis for a temporary CBA. Note that this is a temporary CBA which allows them to resume operations, and that a new permanent one still needs to be negotiated with the NHLPA.

2. The NHL ends the lockout and invites players to training camp.

3. The NHLPA will have to decide to accept the impasse CBA (unlikely) and vote to strike.

4. NHL teams hire replacement players (and any current NHL players who decide to cross the picket lines) to fill out their teams. There are many issues here - immigration law, provincial labor codes on replacement workers, etc.

5. The season begins with replacemet players under the terms of the temporary CBA.

6. The NHLPA will challenge the Impasse before the NLRB. If the NLRB upholds that an impasse did indeed exist and that both sides negotiated in good faith, the league can continue to operate under the Impasse CBA (while still being obligated to negotiate with the PA on a permanent one). If the NLRB rules against the league, all hell breaks loose - the Impasse CBA is thrown out and the old (pre-lockout) CBA may be re-instated, the league could be sued for damages, and the league could choose to re-lockout the players rather than re-open with the old CBA. This is what happened to baseball in '94 - they declared impasse, it was not upheld, they had tp pay damages and operate under the old CBA.

7. If the NLRB upholds the Impasse, the union could give in and sign a new permanent CBA, keep the strike going indefinitely, or use the nuclear option - decertification. If the NHLPA decertifies itself, the Impasse CBA goes out the window, along with all the terms that are illegal without a CBA - Salary caps, the draft, RFAs, arbitration. The players would all become UFAs after their contracts expire, but they would no longer have the protections offered by the CBA - qualifying offers, minimum salaries, guaranteed contracts, etc. Each team would have to independently negotiate with each player and players could sue for damages if any team or teams act in a way that violates anti trust law. .

This is very well said and posters should take note ..

In fact this should be Sticky at the top of the page so people can just reference it in all that threads that require this explanation ..

 

[Scoogs]

Well thats the $2.1B question.

Not anymore...

 

[SENSible1*]

If the union decertifies, there will be no replacement players. All the players would return to work. Then if the league tried to enforce things like restricted free agency or a salary cap, the players could sue.

How many of the current NHLPA members have contracts?

How many non-contracted NHLPA members would come back for 25% of their past contracts?

 

[Weary]

Why is it that only the NHLPA can represent the players? Once they de-certify, can't the players form a new Association (call it NHLRPA if you will) to act on their behalf?

For now the NHLPA is the exclusive bargaining agent. After decertification, the players could vote for a new representative. What I was trying to point out is that replacement players won't be voting. Once the union is decertified there can't be neither a strike nor a lockout. So the NHL would have the regular players, not replacements.

 

[SENSible1*]

For now the NHLPA is the exclusive bargaining agent. After decertification, the players could vote for a new representative. What I was trying to point out is that replacement players won't be voting. Once the union is decertified there can't be neither a strike nor a lockout. So the NHL would have the regular players, not replacements.

Why do you assume the NHL would choose to employ these employees?

Will they hire them back based on their fantastic attitude towards the NHL?

Will they hire them back based on being called liars and cheats by those same players?

 

[Weary]

How many of the current NHLPA members have contracts?

The NHLPA's offer list 288 with contracts for next season.

How many non-contracted NHLPA members would come back for 25% of their past contracts?

Very few

 

[Hawker14]

Why do you assume the NHL would choose to employ these employees?

Will they hire them back based on their fantastic attitude towards the NHL?

Will they hire them back based on being called liars and cheats by those same players?

they'll hire them back because they are the best hockey players in the world, and to protect the brand value of the "NHL" as the best hockey product in the world.

and where does the line start to start offering public quotes by team owners that have been proven to be lies ?

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Why do you assume the NHL would choose to employ these employees?

Will they hire them back based on their fantastic attitude towards the NHL?

Will they hire them back based on being called liars and cheats by those same players?

It's against the law to discriminate against employees because of past/present union affiliation.

 

[Weary]

Why do you assume the NHL would choose to employ these employees?

Will they hire them back based on their fantastic attitude towards the NHL?

Will they hire them back based on being called liars and cheats by those same players?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the NHL is a single entity. One big happy family of thirty owners that can, and do, work together. Even if we put aside the fact that collusion is illegal, the players won't have to worry about their jobs. Owners want to win the Stanley Cup. That's the only motivation they'll need to hire the players.

 

[Buffaloed]

I doubt if the NHL will declare an impasse due to the high stakes involved. If they go the replacement player route, they'll follow this scenario as described by Bob McKenzie:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=117649

Number three is to play an 82*-game schedule next season using exclusively replacement players, that is, any players outside of the NHLPA membership who want to play under whatever terms and conditions the NHL decides to set. A collective bargaining agreement would not have to be in place. In fact, no NHLPA member, even if he wanted to, would be permitted by the league to cross a line and play in this circumstance.
*or 60

If the NHL declares an impasse they're putting it all on the line. A loss to the NHLPA in court or before the NLRB would likely trigger the NHL to file for bankruptcy protection. I don't think the NHL is that adventurous.

 

[txomisc]

I doubt if the NHL will declare an impasse due to the high stakes involved. If they go the replacement player route, they'll follow this scenario as described by Bob McKenzie:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=117649


If the NHL declares an impasse they're putting it all on the line. A loss to the NHLPA in court or before the NLRB would likely trigger the NHL to file for bankruptcy protection. I don't think the NHL is that adventurous.

Sounds weird. Could a player not declare himself no longer a part of the NHLPA?

 

[Timmy]

Sounds weird. Could a player not declare himself no longer a part of the NHLPA?

I stand to be corrected, but that is what he would be doing if he crossed.

MLB players who crossed the line never rejoined their union, even while still playing in the majors alongside the regulars after the strike ended.

 

[Mess]

Sounds weird. Could a player not declare himself no longer a part of the NHLPA?

NO .... Any player that has paid Union fees in the past year or 2 is considered a NHLPA member .. Even UFA who may not currently be paying union fees are still members ..

The option discused is the most likely by the NHL ..that or the very difficult option Partial lockout were the league could lockout out all the players in the league making more then 1 mil / year .. anyone under that could return to work freely not Picket line to cross .. but the NHLPA will fight that in court as its clearly designed to divide the union and the courts may not allow it ..

 

[txomisc]

NO .... Any player that has paid Union fees in the past year or 2 is considered a NHLPA member .. Even UFA who may not currently be paying union fees are still members ..

The option discused is the most likely by the NHL ..that or the very difficult option Partial lockout were the league could lockout out all the players in the league making more then 1 mil / year .. anyone under that could return to work freely not Picket line to cross .. but the NHLPA will fight that in court as its clearly designed to divide the union and the courts may not allow it ..

I don't doubt that its true but it seems pretty damn unfair to me. If I don't want to be part of a union i should damn well be allowed to leave the union.

edit: another question is how long could this go on for?

 

[kdb209]

I don't doubt that its true but it seems pretty damn unfair to me. If I don't want to be part of a union i should damn well be allowed to leave the union.

That's the difference between a strike and a lockout.

During a strike, a union member can choose to cross the picket line and work. During a lockout, no recognized union member is allowed to work.

This in necessary to prevent an employer (in a lockout situation) from trying to induce some key employees to quit the union and resume work - an illegal tactic aimed at splitting or breaking a union.

Replacement Players + no-Impasse = Lockout.

Replacement Players + Impasse = Strike.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

If the NHL declares an impasse they're putting it all on the line. A loss to the NHLPA in court or before the NLRB would likely trigger the NHL to file for bankruptcy protection. I don't think the NHL is that adventurous.

Muu-hahahahaha!!! *waves fingers in menacing fashion*

 

[SENSible1*]

It's against the law to discriminate against employees because of past/present union affiliation.

It is not against the law to discriminate against specific employees who have demonstrated a poor attitude towards your business.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

It is not against the law to discriminate against specific employees who have demonstrated a poor attitude towards your business.

Thanks for stopping by, Senator McCarthy. :lol

 

[Hawker14]

in canada, employees in a unionized workplace who choose to not be part of the union don't have to be, although they still have to pay union dues. these employees are considered "Rand" members,(due to a court decision by the judge of the same name), but yet still enjoy all working conditions and protections as negotiated by the union.

what non-union members don't receive is strike pay, or any other union benefits such as holding union office, participating in general meetings, union education seminars, etc.

unions are still obligated to represent these Rand members in the workplace however.