View Single Post
09-26-2003, 03:24 PM
Registered User
hillbillypriest's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: there there
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,127
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
US labor law is kind of a balancing between many competing considerations. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) tries to limit court involvement in the bargaining process as much as possible while the Sherman Act (the anti-trust laws) tries to regulate as much as possible. I'd have to believe that the Sherman Act would govern whether a merger is possible and the NLRA would govern once the merger issue is resolved.

My understanding of the relationship of the Sherman Act and the NLRA may be different than yours, although since everything I know arises from the magic of Google rather than through any formal instruction on the subject, I will defer to your analysis at the appropriate moment.

My understanding is that the Sherman Act would solely apply so long as there is no collective bargaining relationship between the players and the NHL. Conversely, as long as there is a duly certified player union in place, the NLRA environment applies (and as a result of the Brown decision, does so to the complete exclusion of the application of the Sherman Act lense on the terms of the employer/employee relationship.

Considering the above, the ability of the MLS type single entity structure as a possible vehicle to provide imunity to the NHL owners from anti-trust considerations would really only come into play if and when the players attempted to decertify as part of a power play to try to prevent the NHL from imposing employment terms such as salary caps or player movement restrictions.

Hope this explanation flies. If so, hope this explanation clarifies.


hillbillypriest is offline