Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I’m curious what the lawyers here think. Since Peters was able to negotiate his “resignation”, what do you think he got out of that?
Generally when coaches are “fired”, they are simply relieved of their duties and remain under contract and are paid as before. No cause is required as their employment contract essentially remains in effect.
|
That is not correct. When coaches are "fired" without cause their contracts are still terminated. However, they are entitled to receive a certain period of notice (or pay in lieu of notice) which, due either to (1) the specialized nature of their employment, is likely to simply be the remainder of the term of their contract; or (2) a particular clause in their contract which provides that in the event of termination without cause they will be paid for the remaining term of the now terminated contract. I suspect the answer is (2) because, if (1), terminated coaches would have a duty to mitigate and, if hired by another team, would no longer be entitled to any pay in lieu of notice from their former employer.
With respect to your second point, unless you are a member of a collective bargaining unit, your employer may terminate your employment at any time for any reason whatsoever (except, of course, if it amounts to discrimination under the applicable Human Rights Code).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
In this case, presumably Flames no longer wanted Peters under contract with the organization so his contract was terminated. Did they pay him what he was due in a lump sum? If they paid him what he was due, where was his leverage? Did the Flames want to pay him less than he was due, thereby giving Peters something to negotiate?
|
Settlements can be structured either way: lump sum or salary continuation (or even a combination of both). Just depends on how the parties negotiate it.
The question of "what was Peters due?" is a very complex one. There is no simple answer. It would depend on each parties' assessment of whether or not the Flames would be able to prove cause. There also lots of practical considerations such as how much an appetite for litigation either party has (due to concerns about publicity, the time and money required for litigation, etc.)