Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Okay. Firstly, the players also need to read the whole agreement . At least the important parts.
Here is a good article that pulls them out, and I have quoted them for you
https://www.si.com/hockey/news/does-...to-its-demands
So 17(a) and 17(b) are still in play for 2020-21.
Some experts in labor law and sports law seem to agree that it has to do with economic reality more so than labour law
Is the pandemic beyond the league’s control? Yes
Might the league determine it is not advisable to operate? Sure, that is a distinct possibility
Here is the final quote in the article |
Thanks for the article, it was a good read. I agree with the final paragraph that states they are in this together and should find a compromise but I still think the players are in a much stronger legal situation. The article basically states that in Canada the league does not have a labour law leg to stand on . They cannot really call it a lockout because that is clearly illegal, similar to a wildcat strike. Not sure about American labour law but that is definitely true in Canada. It is one reason why wildcat strikes last about as long as it takes an employer to get into a court room.
So then the league would argue that they have a contractual remedy under the SPC. They may win under that argument and then a judge would have to decide if 17(a) (a suspension of league activities and an eventually re-start of league activities) applies or 17(b) (a cessation and no re-start ever of league activities applies). If it is 17(a) the league would have to pay all paragraph 1 salary obligations up to the time of the suspension. My understanding of paragraph 1 is that players are paid bi-weekly between Oct 15th and April 15th of each year. If the league suspended activities by Dec 15th, under 17(a) they would still be obligated to pay 33 percent of all salaries.
The league would have to have a judge state that the CBA does not apply, that roughly 750 individual SPC's do apply and that the league is voiding 750 individual contracts and not locking out the collective, and that 17(b) of the SPC applies and 17(a) does not apply to avoid financial liability.