I can't see why not. So how do other companies do it?
December 2, The San Francisco Multi-Employer Group agreed to end the lock out and allow the workers back to work while the union and the hotels continue negotiations. Convincing the hotel companies to put employees back to work and putting an end to the lock out was a victory in the eyes of the workers and the union. However, the union and the employers have not settled on a new contract for the members of Local 2.
Locked-out members of Teamsters Local 533 expressed guarded optimism after Thursday afternoon's surprise announcement that the Reno area bus lockout has been unilaterally called off by management.
The case stemmed from a strike that began during contract negotiations. The company continued to operate during the strike, and although the union ended the strike after two months and made an unconditional offer to return the work, the employer declined the offer and instituted a lockout of all workers who had stayed out on strike for the duration. The company’s position was that it would not allow striking employees to return to work until a new agreement was ratified.
http://www.supportlahotelworkers.com/pressroom/articles/041206lat.html
http://www.nevadalabor.com/unews/lockend.html
http://www.kullmanlaw.com/pubs/client_nov04.cfm
Plenty of unions strike after a CBA expires to make their point, then return to work during further negotiations. It would be the same for a lockout.
Now this is getting into an area there doesn't seem to be a lot of easily accessable internet information on. Does the previous CBA then come back into force by both agreeing to use it as stopgap measure, does it come back by default, is it a free for all?
There is the option in some places to hire replacements during a lockout. No impasse, no implementation, just add replacements (no NHLPA members can cross). It may be something the NHL is considering.
Hiring of temporary replacements during defensive lockout not per se unlawful
Legality of hiring of temporary replacements during an offensive lockout where there is no antiunion animus unclear
Per Se Unlawful
7th Cir. (Inland Trucking, 1971)
Not Per Se Unlawful
8th Cir. (Intercollegiate Press, 1973)
Board (Harter Equipment, 1986)
As the current lockout stands its an offensive lockout, therefore no permanent replacements but temporary ones are OK. If the NHL lifts the lockout and union strikes stikes, then it could perhaps start a defensive lockout in retailiation and bring in permant replacements.
If the owners ended the lockout the players might return to work under the old CBA but may strike instead. Then we get some more interesting situations
http://web.missouri.edu/~labored/1997-25.html
It may even be Bettman's plan to make the union strike. This would likely be considered an economic strike not a ULP strike so the NHL could hire permanent replacements. After 12 months off the job the NHLPAers would lose their rights to vote on CBA issues leaving the replacements will all the voting power.
Permanently replaced workers with future reinstatement rights have the right to vote for one year. If they have not been recalled within that one year, they lose the right to vote.
So the NHL can bypass some of the implementation/impasse dangers. But that brings us all the way back to decertification.....
Why would the NHLPA back the WHA? Answer: to break the NHL and force them to cave on demands. If they succeed? The NHLPAers then dump the WHA to die a fast and expensive death. Now that is heartless. Convince the WHA to start up on the promise of players and then stab it in the back.
NHLPA uses WHA to screw NHL, NHLPA screws WHA, NHL screws NHLPA.Heartless? Just business.