[News] Flames and Treliving agree to part ways. Maloney promoted to PoHO and interim GM

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Locke

No...actually, respectfully I think you are incorrect, and maybe a lawyer should weigh in, but I believe the term of the contract is irrelevant other than being the point at which an employer can control an employee.

If Treliving quits, he probably has some sort of 'Non-Compete Clause' that might be enforceable up to the Draft? Or to some reasonable point. In exchange for some compensation?

But I am guessing there.

If an employee quits however, they stop getting paid by their employer and then at that point owe that employer no more consideration and vice versa.

Thats why I said that he's on 'Paid Vacation.'

Anyways, not trying to 'call you out' or anything, thats just my layman's (not a lawyer) understanding of the situation.

If an employee quits during a fixed term contract, it is a breach of contract. The only out they would have is if they alleged constructive dismissal, whereby the job changed so much that it was not what the employee signed up for, or if the work situation became untenable.

If the position is so unique the employer has to parachute in an expert on an immediate basis, the employer can actually sue the employee for any excess costs. I.e. having to pay new guy more than old guy due to scarcity or urgent need.

This is also technically the case if the employee does not provide the requisite notice as written in the employment contract, and additional costs are incurred by the employer.

Both of these are regardless of whether or not the employee goes to a competitor.

In my 22 years practicing employment law, however, this latter situation has only come up once, as an attempted scare tactic by the employer, but it did not get very far.

In our situation, the employee could likely quit and not be actively involved in hockey for the remaining fixed term of the contract, as the employer likely does not want him around anymore if he did not want to be there, but if he wished to do anything involved in hockey, he needs the permission of the employer.

Most real-world (non-NHL) employment contracts are "indefinite term" meaning they go until either party chooses to end it, in which case three factors are in play:
1) The statute in the relevant jurisdiction. In Alberta, that is the Employment Standards Code;
2) The termination provisions in the contract itself. These are usually upheld if they are reasonable, and entered into prior to the commencement of the term, but there are definitely tools to try to fight them; and
3) If no written termination provisions, then the common law applies. This is primarily based upon the Bardal factors, to determine how much notice, or pay in lieu, the employer must give the employee.

Unless it is specifically written into the contract, the employee almost never has to give anything over and above one or two weeks, depending upon their tenure: Two if they have been there for 2 years or more.

Even then, if they did not, it is rare the employer will attempt to enforce it, but could, if there are actual damages.

If the employee did quit and compete during the fixed term of the contract, the employer could bring an Injunction Application against both the individual and the new employer, seeking to forbid the competition for the remaining fixed term of the contract.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Sorry to Treliving and a team wanting to hire him but we didn't fire him and have a contract that runs passed the draft. Makes sense in this situation

[flambers]

Its not so much as why Flames fan should care about Treliving, its the perception of the Flames should be the concern (if this is true)

I would think, this could be viewed as a red flag with the Flames organization in my opinion.

As for the draft, that's not a concern at all, I would think other NHL teams could make a pretty close guess at Flames prospect list.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Knowing how Edwards can be I would not be surprised if this was being done out of spite but he is the owner and it's within his power to do this for a variety of reasons. Some sound and some petty. We have seen teams block assistants from interviews in the past so this kind of stuff happens.

Reading this comment plus seeing your "Smilin' Mur" avatar on the left is gold.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

If an employee quits during a fixed term contract, it is a breach of contract. The only out they would have is if they alleged constructive dismissal, whereby the job changed so much that it was not what the employee signed up for, or if the work situation became untenable.

If the position is so unique the employer has to parachute in an expert on an immediate basis, the employer can actually sue the employee for any excess costs. I.e. having to pay new guy more than old guy due to scarcity or urgent need.

This is also technically the case if the employee does not provide the requisite notice as written in the employment contract, and additional costs are incurred by the employer.

Both of these are regardless of whether or not the employee goes to a competitor.

In my 22 years practicing employment law, however, this latter situation has only come up once, as an attempted scare tactic by the employer, but it did not get very far.

In our situation, the employee could likely quit and not be actively involved in hockey for the remaining fixed term of the contract, as the employer likely does not want him around anymore if he did not want to be there, but if he wished to do anything involved in hockey, he needs the permission of the employer.

Most real-world (non-NHL) employment contracts are "indefinite term" meaning they go until either party chooses to end it, in which case three factors are in play:
1) The statute in the relevant jurisdiction. In Alberta, that is the Employment Standards Code;
2) The termination provisions in the contract itself. These are usually upheld if they are reasonable, and entered into prior to the commencement of the term, but there are definitely tools to try to fight them; and
3) If no written termination provisions, then the common law applies. This is primarily based upon the Bardal factors, to determine how much notice, or pay in lieu, the employer must give the employee.

Unless it is specifically written into the contract, the employee almost never has to give anything over and above one or two weeks, depending upon their tenure: Two if they have been there for 2 years or more.

Even then, if they did not, it is rare the employer will attempt to enforce it, but could, if there are actual damages.

If the employee did quit and compete during the fixed term of the contract, the employer could bring an Injunction Application against both the individual and the new employer, seeking to forbid the competition for the remaining fixed term of the contract.

I’d thank this but you might be opposing one of my employment law partners one day and I don’t want any grief.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I’d thank this but you might be opposing one of my employment law partners one day and I don’t want any grief.

Kelly is good people...

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Tacoman

You don’t believe that adding organizational depth with guys like Walker Duher has any value? And it obviously applies to more than college free agents. Bizarre response.

Of course they matter. But the fact that we didn’t ink one in the last few months is evidence of absolutely nothing. If every team in the league signed 3 and we got 0, then it might be a worthwhile talking point.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

If an employee quits during a fixed term contract, it is a breach of contract. The only out they would have is if they alleged constructive dismissal, whereby the job changed so much that it was not what the employee signed up for, or if the work situation became untenable.

If the position is so unique the employer has to parachute in an expert on an immediate basis, the employer can actually sue the employee for any excess costs. I.e. having to pay new guy more than old guy due to scarcity or urgent need.

This is also technically the case if the employee does not provide the requisite notice as written in the employment contract, and additional costs are incurred by the employer.

Both of these are regardless of whether or not the employee goes to a competitor.

In my 22 years practicing employment law, however, this latter situation has only come up once, as an attempted scare tactic by the employer, but it did not get very far.

In our situation, the employee could likely quit and not be actively involved in hockey for the remaining fixed term of the contract, as the employer likely does not want him around anymore if he did not want to be there, but if he wished to do anything involved in hockey, he needs the permission of the employer.

Most real-world (non-NHL) employment contracts are "indefinite term" meaning they go until either party chooses to end it, in which case three factors are in play:
1) The statute in the relevant jurisdiction. In Alberta, that is the Employment Standards Code;
2) The termination provisions in the contract itself. These are usually upheld if they are reasonable, and entered into prior to the commencement of the term, but there are definitely tools to try to fight them; and
3) If no written termination provisions, then the common law applies. This is primarily based upon the Bardal factors, to determine how much notice, or pay in lieu, the employer must give the employee.

Unless it is specifically written into the contract, the employee almost never has to give anything over and above one or two weeks, depending upon their tenure: Two if they have been there for 2 years or more.

Even then, if they did not, it is rare the employer will attempt to enforce it, but could, if there are actual damages.

If the employee did quit and compete during the fixed term of the contract, the employer could bring an Injunction Application against both the individual and the new employer, seeking to forbid the competition for the remaining fixed term of the contract.

This is all great. Obviously an NHL GM is a unique scenario, and Brad’s circumstances are even unique within that.

What are your thoughts on the ability of an employee in this kind of situation to meet/interview with a prospective employer regarding employment to commence after contract expiry?

[Fuzzy14]

Lots of conflating of principles applicable to indefinite employment contracts (‘ost people) vs. fixed-term contracts. This is further complicated by the fact that Tre is an executive level contract for which the terms are far more restrictive on both parties. Neither party can simply say “I’m terminating, bye”, without further liability. For the flames, that is continued payment of salary and other benefits of the employment. For Tre, that’s sitting on his bum and doing nothing but collect a paycheque, absent agreement from the other party to the contract.

[Tkachukwagon]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1656813680737001475

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Tkachukwagon

https://twitter.com/user/status/1656813680737001475

Hopefully this is not the way they go.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Tkachukwagon

https://twitter.com/user/status/1656813680737001475

Allan Walsh come on down

[GioforPM]

Agents used to go the GM route a fair bit a few years, so it’s not that crazy.

But not Walsh LOL.

[Hockey_Ninja]

Please not Walsh

[1qqaaz]

The only good thing with Walsh is that we would probably get amusing sound bits here and there.

But that got old pretty quickly with Burke then Sutter.

[SportsJunky]

Make way for Rich Winter

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

This is all great. Obviously an NHL GM is a unique scenario, and Brad’s circumstances are even unique within that.

What are your thoughts on the ability of an employee in this kind of situation to meet/interview with a prospective employer regarding employment to commence after contract expiry?

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

I would argue an employee under a fixed term contract discussing post-term employment with a competitor is grounds for immediate termination with cause, obviating the need to pay the remaining term.

If we’re talking about the employee discussing with new employer after he quits, but still during the term, he still needs permission or it’s a breach of contract.
The league would have the ability to impose penalty or conditions on the new team, such as forfeiting draft picks.

[mile]

Lewis Gross or Craig Oster would be funny

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by mile

Lewis Gross or Craig Oster would be funny

So Gaudreau's agent or Matthew Tkachuk's agent/Uncle? That would be another hilarious turn in the pathetic life that is the Calgary Flames.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1658083556600446978