View Single Post
01-05-2013, 01:35 PM
Registered User
Stickmata's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
With all due respect, the question of law is the same...

1-"a CBA between the parties existed at the time, no negotiations were going on, and the company locked out its workers because of a safety concern without following any of the CBA-agreed upon procedure for managing a safety issue" = Case involving or growing out of a Labor Dispute -- Check

2-NHL Lockout 2012-13 = Case involving or growing out of a Labor Dispute -- Check.

Ratio: Anti-injunction provisions of section 4(a) of the Norris Laguardia Act don't apply to protect employers.
I'm sorry, wut? No CBA existed between the NHL and the PA when the owners locked the players out. The CBA had expired. And negotiations were going on. And the lockout had nothing to do with safety concerns, it has to do with the terms of a new CBA.

The two fact patterns you outline above aren't comparable at all.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote