[News] Bill Peters resigns as head coach. No longer part of Flames org. Ward interim HC

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

let go instead of fired - it's an easier path

That’s a euphemism. Letting someone go is terminating their employment as is firing them.

I assume you don’t mean laid off, which would be part of a broader action. If you’re paying someone “reduced severance”, then you’re firing them. I don’t know any other way to put it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

That’s a euphemism. Letting someone go is terminating their employment as is firing them.

I assume you don’t mean laid off, which would be part of a broader action. If you’re paying someone “reduced severance”, then you’re firing them. I don’t know any other way to put it.

Firing someone is risky because - even with solid cause - if they fight it, you are likely going to incur more costs defending and explaining your position, than the costs you would incur to simply relieve them of their duties ('lay them off', 'let them go', 'release them without cause').

It is easier (and often less expensive) to simply pay the person the minimum required severance, and let them go without cause, than to fire them.

Are we clear now?

[Enoch Root]

And no, 'let someone go' does not necessarily mean fire them. Often (usually), it just means release them or lay them off.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by the2bears

A big difference you appear to miss is that the coach is in a position of power over the player. Would you hold a student who abuses a fellow student to the same standard as a teacher who abuses a student? I would hope not.

Seems you are looking to manufacture hypocrisy.

Lot's of people are in positions of power and I totally understand the dynamic associated with that. Like I said in my post, if the goal of the personal conduct policy is to root out the various things we have all discussed, it showed also apply to the players like it applies in other workplaces. If that's the actual goal......... like I said, people have a habit of protecting their meal tickets a little more.

In your employment or mine, in 2019, we aren't getting away with calling people racist slurs, sexually harassing, "unprofessional conduct" or abusing other staff members. Wither or not we are in management doesn't really play a role.

But why shouldn't a personal conduct policy apply to the players? If the NHL want's to change the culture, doesn't that mean all hands on deck? Everybody is on notice?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by curves2000

...If the goal of the policy is root out racism, abusive behavior, improper conduct or whatever anybody wants to call it, why doesn't this apply to players?

Who says it doesn't?

Originally Posted by Gary Bettman

"Going forward, our clubs are on notice that if they become aware of an incident of conduct involving NHL personnel on or off the ice that is clearly inappropriate, unlawful or demonstrably abusive, or that may violate the League’s policies, involving NHL Club personnel, on or off the ice, we at the League office – Bill Daly or me – must be immediately advised. There will be zero tolerance for any failure to notify us and in the event of such failure, the club and individuals involved can expect severe discipline."

I see nothing in Bettman's statement which would suggest that the new policy applies only to coaches and management.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Firing someone is risky because - even with solid cause - if they fight it, you are likely going to incur more costs defending and explaining your position, than the costs you would incur to simply relieve them of their duties ('lay them off', 'let them go', 'release them without cause').

It is easier (and often less expensive) to simply pay the person the minimum required severance, and let them go without cause, than to fire them.

Are we clear now?

"Firing" an employee is rather ambiguous term which means different things to different people. I think it is clearer to look at it this way:

Employment contracts can be terminated, either with cause (no requirement for notice or severance) or without cause (common law & statutory requirement to provide notice and, in some cases, statutory requirement to provide severance).

Employment contracts can also be frustrated (typically by chronic and prolonged absenteeism). In such cases, typically, the employer is only required to provide the employee with statutory notice and severance).

Lastly, employment contracts may be severed, with the employee retaining certain recall rights for a period of time, through a technical lay-off process, usually in accordance with the terms of a collective agreement.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And no, 'let someone go' does not necessarily mean fire them. Often (usually), it just means release them or lay them off.

There is firing with cause and firing without cause. Then there are job reductions, which are commonly referred to as layoffs. A position can also be eliminated which is a little different too.

Not trying to be snarky and didn’t mean to offend you.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Firing someone is risky because - even with solid cause - if they fight it, you are likely going to incur more costs defending and explaining your position, than the costs you would incur to simply relieve them of their duties ('lay them off', 'let them go', 'release them without cause').

It is easier (and often less expensive) to simply pay the person the minimum required severance, and let them go without cause, than to fire them.

Are we clear now?

I think a lot of the confusion with employment law in today's society is your average individual wants blood and to prove a point. We have become a culture of railroading everybody and anybody and that's not how employment law works.

If we go back to the comments about the Bill Peter's situation, it was amazing to see how many posters were clamoring for him to be railroaded without another dime and banished. Everybody wanted the killing to occur immediately meanwhile the adults and the lawyers in the room took care of business in 3 business days.

Like you said, the goal for the majority of business owners and employers is to go your separate ways with the least possible expense. In 2019, firing with cause can be such a headache and a risky situation that it is mostly happening higher profile cases that would make the news.

[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.

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?

Also Treliving was very careful not to say anything about Peters at all. Presumably Peters was able to atleast threaten that any negative statement about him whatsoever would be considered slanderous as all he had admitted to was the one instance of using a racial slur.

[Makarov]

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).

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.)

[curves2000]

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.

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?

Also Treliving was very careful not to say anything about Peters at all. Presumably Peters was able to atleast threaten that any negative statement about him whatsoever would be considered slanderous as all he had admitted to was the one instance of using a racial slur.

I am not a lawyer or anything but I suspect the difference is this. When almost all coaches are fired, it's for poor or perceived poor performance. A lot of coaches end up finding work in the league in some capacity afterwards and their contracts are generally guaranteed.

Where the Peter's situation got a little hairy was the vote of confidence he got from Tre a few days prior. " Our coaching staff isn't going anywhere" was the quote. Then the allegations came out and we all know what happened there.

With Peter's "resigning" from the role instead of being fired for racist comments, the team isn't the one labeling him a racist and can't be held liable if he can't find employment in the NHL again.

Perhaps I am wrong but I suspect that the parties agreed to have Peter's get the full value of his contract and would sign a waiver to not sue for future damages.

[Strange Brew]

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?

[Tyler]

I have a feeling Bill Peter's is hiding out in a cabin in North Carolina right now

[powderjunkie]

Every situation is unique, but I'm pretty sure there is typically a negotiation between the hiring team and the team still paying the fired coach (and perhaps the coach himself, too). The coach may/may not make more money than if they stayed home for the duration of the contract (though they likely get some extra years out of it), the firing team's payroll burden is reduced, and the hiring team often saves some cash, too.

[GioforPM]

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? I'm assuming he got a settlement payment

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. True, though if they get a new job, they may have mitigated and don't get as much. You'd need to see the contract and the terms.

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? I would speculate there was negotiation involving the Flames saying they had cause to fire, Peters saying they didn't and them landing somewhere between, and Peters getting the "dignity" of a resignation. As to lump sum versus some sort of structured payments, that's up to them to negotiate.

Also Treliving was very careful not to say anything about Peters at all. Presumably Peters was able to at least threaten that any negative statement about him whatsoever would be considered slanderous as all he had admitted to was the one instance of using a racial slur. Maybe. I would think it more probable that Peters tool less money in exchange for a Flames promise to keep the comments about him to a minimum. I doubt Treliving would be too concerned about slander in this situation. Anything he said would be his opinion about the admitted conduct, which isn't slander. It would only be slander if he lied about Peters publicly.

Replies in bold

[Azure]

I wasn't aware that Peters supposedly made Johnny stop drinking the purple Gatorade. Pretty low-down.

Glad he's gone.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by Azure

I wasn't aware that Peters supposedly made Johnny stop drinking the purple Gatorade. Pretty low-down.

Glad he's gone.

That post in the PGT was just a joke. It was based on Frank Servalli's article when the scandal originally broke: https://www.tsn.ca/akim-aliu-speaks-...ters-1.1403974

I'm sure Peters is tolerant of Gatorade of all colors and flavors

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by Azure

I wasn't aware that Peters supposedly made Johnny stop drinking the purple Gatorade. Pretty low-down.

Glad he's gone.

[Racki]

Man did treliving get a mulligan here. There’s no way he cans Peters unless the Aliu story comes out.

[sureLoss]

Jake Dowell says that Peters apologized after the n-word incident

https://theathletic.com/1466657/2019...10-blackhawks/

Being a leader in Rockford brought challenges for Dowell. During that first stint, Dowell was in the room when then-coach Bill Peters used the N-word in Akim Aliu’s presence. A lot of players swallowed their tongue then and have continued to now, even as Peters was fired by the Calgary Flames for his actions. Dowell thought it was important to address immediately and went to speak to Peters after it occurred.

“I did talk to Bill,” Dowell said. “I went into the office and did talk to him and said I think we need to address this. To his credit, in my recollection, he went in and addressed it. It was 10 years ago, so I don’t have a perfect memory of it. In my mind, I thought it was addressed with a sincere apology. Akim clearly has a different recollection of it. I commend him for standing up and making changes in hockey because this has really taken the hockey world by storm right now and it’s a big deal.

“I’m absolutely proud of myself talking to Bill and doing the right thing. I think Akim and Bill, I care about them both, so it means a lot to me. I didn’t want that situation to get out of control, and it’s more or less the right thing to do.”