1994-95 NHL lockout

National Hockey League labour relations

1992 strike

1994–95 lockout

2004–05 lockout

2012–13 lockout

Collective Bargaining Agreement

The 1994–95 NHL lockout was a lockout that came after a year of National Hockey League (NHL) hockey that was played without a collective bargaining agreement. The lockout was a subject of dispute as the players sought collective bargaining and owners sought to help franchises that had a weaker market as well as make sure they could cap the rising salaries of players. The lockout caused the 1994–95 season to be shortened to 48 games instead of 84, the shortest season in 53 years.

Much like the 2004–05 NHL lockout, the big issue was the implementation of a salary cap. The NHL owners were strongly in favor of the cap while the players were opposed to it. The NHL wanted to levy a tax, a financial penalty that is assigned by the league, on salaries that were higher than the average. However, the NHL’s Player Association viewed that as a variation on a salary cap and refused to accept it. This came right off the heels of the 1992 walkout by players, which interrupted the race for the Stanley Cup.

This 3 month, 1 week, and 3 day lockout stretched from October 1, 1994, to January 11, 1995. A total of 468 games were lost due to the lockout, along with the All-Star Game. Unlike the league's future lockouts, the players went to training camp as if to start the season. However, as these camps came to a close it was obvious that there was to be labor talks in the near future.

As previously noted, the NHL wanted to levy a "tax" on salaries that were higher than the average and the NHLPA viewed that as a variation on a salary cap and refused to accept it. Unlike in the 1992 strike, it was the owners who wanted to make sure that they got the right deal and this was under a new commissioner Gary Bettman. There were a few issues that the owners wanted to work out, most of which revolved around salary caps, free agency and hoping to limit escalating salaries. Bettman's "NHL mandate was: aggressive expansion, a new American TV deal, a focus on growth (especially in the southern U.S.), and lasting labor peace … under the owners’ terms, of course.". It was widely assumed that to reach this peace a salary cap would have to be in place. Bettman's insisted the owners' plan was merely a tax plan, but would result the same as a salary cap.

...
Wikipedia