View Single Post
11-14-2012, 02:43 PM
Global Moderator
kdb209's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 16,100
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
I seem to remember the claim was that the owners had unilaterally imposed rules/conditions in the 93 season (in which there was no cba) and they had no right to do that while negotiations were ongoing. Fehr himself claimed that was the reason for the strike (as opposed to pressuring owners).

I do not think the NHL is in the same boat in this case as they chose the safest way out, a lockout.
The MLB owners lost in 1995 due to stupidity and arrogance.

In 1995 they tried to unilaterally impose a set of new work rules - abolishing salary arbitration, centralizing all player negotiations with the commissionerís office, and ending an agreement not to collude on salaries - without even trying to declare an Impasse.

They simply said they were imposing those terms, lifting the lockout, and opening for business with replacement players.

The NLRB ruled this an unfair labor practice and NY District Court Justice Sotomayor issued an injunction prohibiting implementation of the new terms.

Had MLB tried to declare an impasse (and has it upheld by the NLRB), they would have been able to impose their previous last offer (a CBA with a cap but without the draconian restrictions of their final imposed terms) - there would have been no ULP charge or injunction.

kdb209 is offline