Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

A worker moves a hockey net as Vancouver Canucks team logos are projected on the ice before the team's NHL game against the Detroit Red Wings in Vancouver, B.C., on Thursday February 2, 2012.

DARRYL DYCK/The Canadian Press

As the NHLPA tests labour law challenges in Quebec and Alberta, it does not appear as though a similar effort is immediately poised in British Columbia.

During the last lockout, there was a move to certify the BC-NHLPA, an individual bargaining unit for the Vancouver Canucks within the broader union, the National Hockey League Players' Association.

There was, in fact, a short-lived victory in late June, 2006, as the workers' legal case was initially approved by the B.C. Labour Relations Board. However, on appeal, the board sided with the owners of the Canucks and the NHL.

Story continues below advertisement

The reasoning, in an 18-page decision rendered July 31, 2007 – http://www.lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B172$2007.pdf – may perhaps be read with additional context given the current fight. In a few words, the decision stated it was better for everyone, owners and players, to have one big union of workers and that smaller entities could cause unnecessary trouble.

Basically, leave good enough alone.

"The longstanding ability of the NHL and the NHLPA to self-govern their relations through the CBA and agree upon forums and means to resolve their disputes is significant," read the decision authored by labour relations board chair Brent Mullins (who remains chair of the board today, with a term to 2015).

"We believe that in light of the nature of the structure, functioning and history of the existing regime, we should be reluctant to interfere with it by establishing another regime."

The board, in its conclusion, said it would be "inappropriate" to grant certification to a union of Vancouver Canucks, and noted that the team owners and the players are "well served by their current league-wide bargaining structure."

The board added that "if this circumstance were to change.... it may be that we would have to revisit our decision."

Such a move, however, does not appear to be in the immediate offing.

Story continues below advertisement

On Tuesday, Canucks' captain Henrik Sedin said there hasn't been talk of another effort to create an individual bargaining.

"No, nothing yet, I haven't heard of anything," said Sedin.

Asked if there was any interest in such a move, Sedin said, "We'll see what happens," though that is a typical response of Sedin's, whether the question is on labour or hockey.

Asked whether the NHLPA would aid the Canucks players in such an effort, Sedin replied, "We haven't talked about it."

The original legal push in the last lockout was in part driven by the prospect of replacement players. In a strike or lockout in B.C., provisions – http://www.lrb.bc.ca/code/#section68 – in the provincial labour relations code generally prevent the hiring of replacement workers.

In a recent commentary on the current labour situation, and the previous Canucks case at the Labour Board, writer Patrick Johnston of Canucksarmy.com wryly noted, "The fact that the owners had locked out the players [in 1994 and 2004] was not reflective of long-standing dysfunction."

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies