Comments on: NHL wins Alberta Labour Board case

By: finfan88shark

finfan88shark — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:01:28 +0000

The problem was that the Labour board looked at the broader issue and used that in their decision. And therein lyes the problem. They had no legal basis to use the broader issue as the local area players never argued that issue. What the board did was side step the legal issue brought to them. Just the fact the never mentioned a plaintiffs name yet mentioned Daly’s name numerous times tells you this decision was bought and paid for.

By: finfan88shark

finfan88shark — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:01:28 +0000

By: finfan88shark

finfan88shark — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:52:58 +0000

Well I’m an American and I disagree with what you are saying

By: phillyphannn83

phillyphannn83 — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:01:15 +0000

I commemted on these stories waaayyy back when they were first posted back in August and said these local labour boards have no jurisdiction over the other teams in the league and therefore, cannot make a determination to declare the lockout illegal. I said they don’t have the authority and all you Canadians that comment here told me I was wrong. You called me a stupid American, which was entirely uncalled for. And wouldn’t you know, BOTH labour boards came to the exact same determination: they don’t have the jurisdiction to tell any team outside their province what they have to do. Seems this “stupid American” knows a little more than you gave me credit for!!

By: finfan88shark

finfan88shark — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:17:21 +0000

The Labour boards decision is wrong on a number of basis, but even reading the decision one can see no reference to anyone on the players side. 99% of references are made towards William Daly’s comments, no mention of players comments or concerns. Additionally the report states in 29) The the NHL ANNOUNCED that the NHL and all 30 teams were unanimous decision to favor a lockout. Yet two issues are questionable here. 1. Phoenix is owned by the NHL and therefore does not have a legal right to vote for a lockout, and 2. There was no roll call or no PROOF of the unanimous decision. The Labour Board is a legal entity yet it used heresay as part of their evidence for making their decision.

Finally the Labour board mentions in 31, that making the lockout in Alberta not legal would have no overall effect on the NHL teams itself. Obviously the NHL disagreed with this statement hence there reason for fight this dispute to begin with. The Labour Board failed to recognize that both Calgary and Edmonton would of had to have paid there players there full salaries if they over turned the lockout, and this in turn would most likely lead to pressure upon other teams to settle this dispute.

Finally the Labour Relations Board, failed to mention the effect this lockout has on workers at the Arena who are shutout of pay because of a dispute in which they are not part of.

By: blomfeld

blomfeld — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:04:39 +0000

Agreed … and say what you will about the KHL, but never in a “million years” would they ever allow corruption on a scale like this … never !

By: finfan88shark

finfan88shark — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:42:27 +0000

The Labour Board was paid for and bought by the NHL owners, no doubt about it. Because they did not even follow their own laws and rules when they made this “Not surprising” ruling. Wonder how much money they lined their pockets with?