Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
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).
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.)
|
With regards to the first point, aren’t fired coaches usually kept under contract which is why they need permission to interview for another position? Why would that be needed if their contract is terminated? Maybe I am mixing sports here or maybe that is somehow a provision of the termination? In any case, the main point I gues that they get paid.
So back to my second point. What were Peters’ leverage points to negotiate a resignation in this case? Flames were not willing to pay out his full contract? Or could he claim that the act of dismissal itself was somehow damaging to him when it was well known that the reasons were not related to his performance as Flames head coach? The latter seems like a weak point.
And finally what legal standing does the league use if they want to investigate or punish him? There is no CBA with the coaches is there?