View Single Post
Old
12-17-2004, 01:52 AM
  #21
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Hutz
I would think that the Canadian labour code would have less of an argument for jurisdiction. Its a provincial responsibility, and the federal legislation exists for areas of nationwide importance. I wouldn't say that 6 corporations in 4 provinces meet qualify.
Their proposed bargaining unit involves players in the US, assuming a league wide one. I'd say that falls under the feds power to regulate trade and commerce. Any effect on civil rights in the province would seem to be necessarily incidental to me. That seemed to be the view of the OLRB in this one case...I really should give you a citation. Warning though, I got a C+ in Constitutional law, so I could be wrong.

Quote:
No, its never been an issue, but they've been getting ready for armageddon for years now, don't you think the NHLPA and their lawyers should have looked into it?
It's a situation though where if you think you might lose, you might be better off not even trying to certify-why risk having it made clear that that the BC Labour Relations Act doesn't apply? At least now, if the NHL wants to use replacement players in BC, they're taking a big risk by doing it. If you go and lose, that hammer's gone. I'd rather have the threat myself.

mudcrutch79 is offline