From my very limited knowledge of these types of affairs - seems like a hail mary. Courts typically accept arbitrators rulings.
I wonder how much the district court will look to the decision of the Second Circuit in NFL v Brady as there are similar issues at play. Hell, I wonder if the district court wouldn't just put this case over entirely until Bardy's hearing before the full appeals court is decided?
So, if the NHL wins, shouldn't it have to go back to arbitration? If arbitration is effectively a "mistrial", is Wideman not entitled to a new "trial"?
So, if the NHL wins, shouldn't it have to go back to arbitration? If arbitration is effectively a "mistrial", is Wideman not entitled to a new "trial"?
I would think the NHLPA and Wideman would have two options if the NHL prevailed:
First would be to appeal the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Which would be interesting as this is the same court that found for the NFL in the Brady case. (on the flip side, if the district court sides with the NHLPA, the NHL could launch this appeal).
Second would be to request a new arbitration hearing. In either case, I would bet the NHL would make Wideman sit out that 20th game, so it would be nothing but a fight over money and precedent.
My sense from reading the arbitrator's decision a while back was that he thought Bettman's evidence aligned with a rule that stated 10 games instead of 20.
Is there anything the court can do if they find this action frivolous, and take notice of the 9 games Wideman unjustly served? Of course, it didn't cause him a dime, but one could argue that it could have impacted his livelihood based on his next contract?
*Sigh*, no. The NHL clearly believes the arbitrator acted beyond his power under the CBA.
You people would be complaining if the NHL were to (or appear to) violate the CBA, so don't get whiny because the NHL believes someone else did.
*Sigh*, the NHL also believed Wideman was trying to paralyze Henderson. Bettman/NHL get unfair/unnecessary grief a lot of the time - however, most complaints related to their 'wheel of justice' are totally legit.
All of you patronizers trying to be the smartest guys in the room - explain how the arbitrator acted beyond his power? My impression is that he felt the evidence presented did not align with the rule guiding the punishment (but rather aligned with another similar rule, with the 10 game punishment).
Of course, this came down to some very specific interpretation of language...which is normally what happens here. If the arb ruled on his own judgment of what was appropriate based on the evidence presented (including precedents cited by the PA), I think he would have ruled 0-3 games.
*Sigh*, the NHL also believed Wideman was trying to paralyze Henderson. Bettman/NHL get unfair/unnecessary grief a lot of the time - however, most complaints related to their 'wheel of justice' are totally legit.
All of you patronizers trying to be the smartest guys in the room - explain how the arbitrator acted beyond his power? My impression is that he felt the evidence presented did not align with the rule guiding the punishment (but rather aligned with another similar rule, with the 10 game punishment).
Of course, this came down to some very specific interpretation of language...which is normally what happens here. If the arb ruled on his own judgment of what was appropriate based on the evidence presented (including precedents cited by the PA), I think he would have ruled 0-3 games.
All of which, from my understanding, is outside of his power.
Quote:
The NDA conducted a de novo review of Mr. Wideman’s suspension whereas the CBA provides explicitly that the NDA’s review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision on supplementary discipline is supported by ‘substantial evidence
*Sigh*, the NHL also believed Wideman was trying to paralyze Henderson. Bettman/NHL get unfair/unnecessary grief a lot of the time - however, most complaints related to their 'wheel of justice' are totally legit.
Hyperbole does not improve your argument. Please show me a statement where the NHL stated a belief that "Wideman was trying to paralyze Henderson". The NHL stated a belief that Wideman's actions were deliberate.
Wheel of justice arguments are valid in general, but irrelevant here as the rule book lays out specific punishments for incidents like this. And while Bettman wasn't required to follow this rule since the officials failed to assess a penalty for it, using it as the basis of his judgment at least removed the randomness that the wheel of justice produces. That, incidentally, the arbitrator agreed with.
Quote:
All of you patronizers trying to be the smartest guys in the room - explain how the arbitrator acted beyond his power? My impression is that he felt the evidence presented did not align with the rule guiding the punishment (but rather aligned with another similar rule, with the 10 game punishment).
The terms of the CBA state that the arbitrator's responsibility is to determine whether the commissioner's judgment is supported by "substantial evidence". He has power to offer his own remediation only if he finds the commissioner lacked that substantial evidence.
The NHL's argument is that the arbitrator in this case completely ignored the commissioner's judgment and instead conducted what amounted to a new trial based on his own opinions. The league contends that neither of these decisions are in his power.
On a more general level, if the arbitrator decided that rule 40.3 was appropriate, then he is stating an agreement with Bettman that Wideman deliberately struck Henderson. It is indisputable that Henderson was injured. Rule 40.2 says: Any player who deliberately strikes an official and causes injury or who deliberately applies physical force in any manner against an official with intent to injure, or who in any manner attempts to injure an official shall be automatically suspended for not less than twenty (20) games. (emphasis mine)
I haven't read Bettman's 20+ page ruling, but the simple fact is, everyone with the power to decide punishment says Wideman's actions were deliberate, and there is no question about injury. It seems indisputable that Bettman had "substantial evidence" to believe that the punishments defined by Rule 40.2 and the 20 game suspension were applicable. By ignoring this, the league is arguing the arbitrator overstepped his bounds and is acting outside of his authority granted by the CBA.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
I am pretty sure early on in this process I posted about the standard of review and how it was going to be interesting to see how it gets reconciled given that new evidence could be called at each stage. The appeal before Bettman had evidence before it that was not in the original hearing and the appeal before the Arbitrator had even more evidence than what was before Bettman.
This was a significant issue for the arbitrator and now is not too surprising it appears to be a main issue driving the NHL lawsuit.
To note how important this issue is in appeals in the general sense, in the Alberta Court of Appeal, every single written argument submitted is required to have a section dealing with standard of review and many decisions are made by applying the standard of review and not necessarily dealing with the substance of the evidence.
Here is what the Arbitrator wrote on the topic:
Quote:
As quoted above, Article 18.13(c) of the CBA provides that, “The NDA shall hold an in-person hearing and shall determine whether the final decision of the League regarding whether the Player’s conduct violated the League Playing Rules and whether the length of the suspension imposed were
supported by substantial evidence.” In addition, “The NDA shall have the authority to consider any evidence relating to the incident even if such evidence was not available at the time of the initial Supplementary Discipline for On Ice Conduct decision or at the time of the Commissioner’s decision
in connection with the appeal.” Taken literally, these provisions seem internally inconsistent. The NDA is to consider whether the two parts of the Commissioner’s decision were supported by substantial evidence. If the answer to either part is no, then the League’s actions cannot be upheld.
But if the answer is yes, the NDA can nevertheless disaffirm what the Commissioner decided based on new evidence, or otherwise the “new evidence” language is meaningless. Logically, the provisions must authorize the NDA to decide whether the totality of the evidence presented at the NDA hearing comprises substantial support for the Commissioner’s decision.
Article 18.13(c) also states that the NDA has “full remedial authority” after a determination that “the Commissioner’s decision was [past tense] not supported by substantial evidence.” Here, again taken literally, the logic of the language falters. If the Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, then it cannot be affirmed and the NDA has full remedial authority. But, what if the NDA is persuaded by new evidence that the result reached by the Commissioner was incorrect? Again, this language must mean that the NDA has full remedial authority if the NDA determines that the totality of the evidence presented at the NDA hearing does not provide substantial support for the Commissioner’s decision.
Essentially the drafting of the provisions was poorly done. When they wrote the procedures into the CBA they do not appear to have imagined someone trying to apply them in a real life example. Personally, I think the Arbitrator interpreted them in the only way to make sense of them.
The NHL obviously disagrees.
To me this is an esoteric legal argument that has less to do with Wideman or Henderson or the Flames or Bettman than many people think.
Since the drafters of the CBA wrote a confusing mess, it actually makes some sense to have a court rule on the proper procedure and standard of review. Otherwise if there is another one of these hearings, the same confusing mess will be left for the next arbitrator to attempt to navigate.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MBates For This Useful Post:
The terms of the CBA state that the arbitrator's responsibility is to determine whether the commissioner's judgment is supported by "substantial evidence". He has power to offer his own remediation only if he finds the commissioner lacked that substantial evidence.
He found the decision was not based on substantial evidence. His remediation was that the evidence presented applied to another rule (in this case a 'guiding rule', just as the 20 game rule was). Of course, none of us were in the room, so we will never know if he actually "re-tried" the whole case or not.
Too lazy to dig it all back up, but summed up from memory:
10 game - deliberate action against an official without intent
20 game - deliberate action against an official with intent to injure
Bettman's evidence supported deliberate action, but did not support intent to injure.
It seems pretty straightforward that the 1st part applies, but there is significant question around the question of intent to injure. For me, the wheel of justice problem is significant:
Lucic's action to throw a punch was deliberate, he did not intend to hit or injure the official.
Weber's action to skate through Henderson was deliberate, he did not intend to hit or injure the official.
CuJo's action to skate at the official was deliberate, he did not intend to pull down or injure the official.
(dozens of other possible examples, but these are fairly recent and included in the various threads)
Wideman's is more grey than those examples on both counts:
His action to push away his impediment was probably deliberate, but there is room to argue it was more split second/reactionary/influenced by moving parts than the others (except Weber), and his state of mind could have impacted whether or not it was truly a deliberate action. It's also possible that he did intend to injure the official (moreso than the other 3 examples above), but based on all of the evidence I have seen, I don't think it is at all likely (and apparently the arbitrator agrees).
MBates is totally correct about the poorly written nature of the provisions being the issue here. Arbitrator identified that, and applied logical approach to work through those deficiencies.
