Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Resolute has mentioned this before, the league doesnt have a choice.
If they believe that the Arbitrator misinterpreted the CBA then they cant just 'let it go' because his decision becomes legal precedent and effectively alters that same CBA which is pretty much as bad as it gets.
Its not about the PA, its not about Wideman, its about the CBA.
If a third party goes around changing the rules of the CBA then it isnt the same document anymore.
|
The arbitrator didn't "change" anything. He made an analysis of the situation, applied his interpretation of the rules in the CBA as they applied to the situation at hand (correctly or incorrectly) and issued a decision. There is no "legal precedent" from this - another arbitrator in a similar situation may choose to rule quite differently. Apparently, the decision also isn't viewed by the NHL as overly binding as the NHL is now seeking to challenge it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
That guy was wrong. And now he's been fired for being bad at his job.  |
That guy wasn't "wrong" - the NHL chose to challenge the decision he made because
they think he is "wrong". That's a perspective vs an actuality. And there is no comment as to whether he was good or bad - just that they disagreed and decided not to continue with him. (Just an aside: it's not unusual that the guy holding the bag of cash
pays for dispute resolution, but I find it quite odd that they also got to name him, and can dismiss him.)
The one statement I agree with above is this: "Its not about the PA, its not about Wideman, its about the CBA." They are setting up a fight for the next CBA negotiation with the PA as to how / when arbitration can be applied and the applicable terms of reference for each case.
An arbitrator who is engaged (and is dismissible) by the league is not likely to be viewed by outsiders as "neutral". Credit to the guy who clearly ignored that bit of manipulation.