Bill Peters Under Investigation

[Auston'sWilly]

Maybe the Flames surprise everyone and conclude that "Yes he did in fact say those things but people change and he's not the man he once was, doesn't everyone deserve a 2nd chance"....

Well, that'd be one clever way to get a new arena immediately.

[Axeman33]

Going forward

https://twitter.com/Account4hockey/s...358845959?s=19

Bob McKenzie says on TSN1050 that Dreger is going have a report tonight on Insider Trading that the NHLPA has told players that if they have issues with abuse from coaches, to go through the PA's channels and not just release a story on twitter.

[2014olympicgold]

Going forward

https://twitter.com/Account4hockey/s...358845959?s=19

So they can hide it I guess?

[Axeman33]

So they can hide it I guess?

Well I wont say that's the exact reason but probably more to control the context and investigate the situation before it gets out of hand. God knows in today's society, its guilty before proven innocent.

[Rylant]

Going forward

https://twitter.com/Account4hockey/s...358845959?s=19

It's an interesting idea. I wonder if somebody could find themselves in trouble moving forward for not doing it the way the PA wants. Victims some times have a difficult time coming to terms with incidents like this. What if it is worse or what if it is a sexual abuse or physical abuse incident? Do I have to report it the way the PA wants me to, or am I welcome to deal with it in the manner I see fit?

Rylant

[Canucks_fan18]

It's an interesting idea. I wonder if somebody could find themselves in trouble moving forward for not doing it the way the PA wants. Victims some times have a difficult time coming to terms with incidents like this. What if it is worse or what if it is a sexual abuse or physical abuse incident? Do I have to report it the way the PA wants me to, or am I welcome to deal with it in the manner I see fit?

Rylant

I think everyone is forgetting what these coaches probably know about their players. Probably could ruin a few family's and reputations if the coaches end up being as loose lipped as the players. Don't throw stones at a glass house.

[LawMan]

I'm genuinely curious what Lawman would say about this ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac.../#118da38d781e

If, indeed, the Flames are trying to fire him for cause and therefore get out of paying him, I suspect it will boil down to how his contract is worded regarding past conduct? That's a slippery slope - one could certainly argue that immoral conduct should be limited to behaviour within the time period of the contract being terminated.

The article does a very good job of summing it up. Firing Without Cause = employer breaking the contract = severance pay or, in this case, Full Payment of the Contract. Firing for "Just Cause" = employee broke the contract = No further payments.

It is very difficult to fire an employee for Just Cause in Canada. It usually requires an employee who steals, commits physical or sexual assault or another egregious breach of acceptable conduct. Assuming the allegations against Peters are all true there would be strong arguments for and against the Flames being able to terminate for Just Cause.

Flames Argument
The actions committed (once proven) by Peters are wholly unacceptable and the Flames cannot employ such a person, especially in a position of power. By continuing to employ Peters the brand is diminished, Fans are disgruntled, sponsors are pulling away. Further, players may be less likely to sign with the team because they do not want to play for Peters. Further, the Flames may argue that Peters had a duty to disclose all skeletons at the time of hiring and that had they known about these actions they never would have hired him.

Peters Argument
The actions were not undertaken in relation to his employment with the Flames nor at a time he was employed by the Flames. The "code of conduct" provisions are only in relation to actions caused by Peters during his employment with the Flames, the actions occurred before he signed his contract with the Flames so they cannot be a breach of the code of conduct. Further, a firing for "Just Cause" is permitted because the employee breached the contract with the employer first, these actions which occurred before Peters was hired by the Flames are not a breach of his contract with the Flames and thus no Just Cause exists. Finally, Peters will likely argue the Flames did not ask about this situation specifically and he had no recollection of it and saw no reason why he should disclose it.

Overall it would be a very interesting case to see argued and adjudicated on in Canada. For any employee not in the public spot light I would have hard time seeing 10 year old actions amount to creating Just Cause. Given that Peters is a public face of the team it is possible it changes somewhat but I'm still not sure. If I had guess I would say the actions do not amount to Just Cause but I could be convinced otherwise.

I do agree that Peters is going to get fired and then there will be back and forths between lawyers and Peters will settle for some amount owing.

[doulos]

I think everyone is forgetting what these coaches probably know about their players. Probably could ruin a few family's and reputations if the coaches end up being as loose lipped as the players. Don't throw stones at a glass house.

I completely disagree. Get this out there (if it's true of course). If the accuser is also guilty of something then get that out there as well. Blow em both up!

[Auston'sWilly]

This adds another interesting layer. Perhaps the Flames are not just taking their time for a thorough investigation, but also to explore the option of having the NHL terminate him. That sounds like a pretty good case for just cause to me. And if not, the team could then argue the NHL made the decision, so it's up to them to pay out the contract if just cause still cannot be proven.

(per Elliotte Friedman - https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...-likely-occur/ )


Article VI, Section 5 (j) of the NHL Constitution allows commissioner Gary Bettman to “expel or suspend (anyone) for a definite or indefinite period” who he has determined to be “guilty of conduct detrimental to the League or the game of hockey.”
There is also room for a fine of up to $1 million, and termination of employment. (Any suspension longer than two years can be appealed.)
No one wants this to linger any longer than it has to, but labour lawyers will tell you even the most obvious situations are tricky. It is believed the organization and league are exploring firing Peters for cause, but that may not be easy. The two incidents Peters is being investigated for occurred in another league and on a different contract, respectively. He has the rest of this season and next on a contract that pays him around $2 million (CDN) per season.
A thorough investigation avoids litigation, and that is a major factor.

[Rylant]

I think everyone is forgetting what these coaches probably know about their players. Probably could ruin a few family's and reputations if the coaches end up being as loose lipped as the players. Don't throw stones at a glass house.

Ya there is no question, it can go both ways in situations like this. What I am saying, is that people in seriously abusive situations rarely want to come out through the proper channels. Victims tend to not be comfortable going to the accuser's boss, or the police. So what happens then?

Rylant

[Rylant]

To add to what Lawman is saying, yes I agree that it is very difficult to fire somebody for just cause. Working as management in the restaurant industry, it was frequent that we would just severance somebody we weren't happy with. My boss would often say "Do you want this person working in the building anymore? Do you want to continue to deal with this? Severance them the required 4 weeks and make them go away." If we flat out caught people stealing and there was more than 1 witness, we would terminate with cause. If somebody had a history of lateness and no-shows with tons of signed documentation and they continued to no-show or be late, we rarely dismissed with cause, but it did happen. I can't tell you how many times I would say "We can't let this person go with cause? Look at the evidence. How many witnesses do we have?" My boss would often say "It's not worth it. Save us the headache. Severance them." One of my bosses was caught stealing money out of the safe. There were several witnesses and she flat out admitted it when confronted. Since she was in upper management, they gave her a year severance...

Rylant

[Canucks_fan18]

Ya there is no question, it can go both ways in situations like this. What I am saying, is that people in seriously abusive situations rarely want to come out through the proper channels. Victims tend to not be comfortable going to the accuser's boss, or the police. So what happens then?

Rylant

I guess you need the courage to come forth, which is easier said than done. I feel for the victims, I really do. I don't really like social media being the communication delivery method though because it's full of false information and is very reactive. Why do you think people still believe that vaccines harm children? I don't think as a society we have found out yet how to be responsible enough with social media or understand how powerful it can be. Trump literally became the president because he had the outlet of social media. I would argue he doesn't get elected without it. Powerful stuff and can be harmful as well.

[Dr.Brad]

Geez. Make him a termination offer, or 2/3 of the money will go to the various layers of attorneys. Simple retirement without public admission (except by social media), and both sides agree not to disclose terms for two years.

[ericdaoust]

I guess you need the courage to come forth, which is easier said than done. I feel for the victims, I really do. I don't really like social media being the communication delivery method though because it's full of false information and is very reactive. Why do you think people still believe that vaccines harm children? I don't think as a society we have found out yet how to be responsible enough with social media or understand how powerful it can be. Trump literally became the president because he had the outlet of social media. I would argue he doesn't get elected without it. Powerful stuff and can be harmful as well.

Not everything on social media is horrible. There's a lot of good to come out of there, including the ability to get these stories out there. Of course there's going to be bullshit and mobs piling on. That's part of the package. It's not all bad though. I prefer to focus on the good.

[hockeymanG23]

Going forward

https://twitter.com/Account4hockey/s...358845959?s=19

So they can hide it I guess?

Well I wont say that's the exact reason but probably more to control the context and investigate the situation before it gets out of hand. God knows in today's society, its guilty before proven innocent.

It's an interesting idea. I wonder if somebody could find themselves in trouble moving forward for not doing it the way the PA wants. Victims some times have a difficult time coming to terms with incidents like this. What if it is worse or what if it is a sexual abuse or physical abuse incident? Do I have to report it the way the PA wants me to, or am I welcome to deal with it in the manner I see fit?

Rylant

I would think a big part of this is the concern for players that if they come forward about abuse that they might be labeled as a trouble maker and blacklisted. If they go trough the NHLPA they’ll have access to the PA lawyers and may be able to save face instead of being dragged through the mud themselves.

I would expect the NHL would prefer this too as I’m sure they would want to handle these cases appropriately without all the negative publicity that comes along with it.