Bob Huggins says he never resigned, wants reinstatement

[wingsfan055]

If his team, recruits, students and alumni want him back, he'll be back. It has nothing to do with the law or contracts or WVU administration...

 

[navery12]

If his team, recruits, students and alumni want him back, he'll be back. It has nothing to do with the law or contracts or WVU administration...

They don't. He won't.

 

[nomar]

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. It's been a while since I looked at the collective bargaining agreement, but I'm not confident that either of those meet the undefined standard of "serious" breach of contract.

Drunk driving constitutes “serious misconduct,” which is the term in the CBA that Ollie relied on.

Bigotry can also be a basis for termination based on “serious misconduct.”

 

[CL82]

Drunk driving constitutes “serious misconduct,” which is the term in the CBA that Ollie relied on.

Bigotry can also be a basis for termination based on “serious misconduct.”

Does drunk driving constitute serious misconduct under the collective bargaining agreement, particularly if it was done on private time? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying if it's not expressly in the CBA the union will fight it. Same thing with an off color comment made off-campus rather than specific acts on campus.

Notes and I'm not defending or justifying either, but if acts that were done directly during KO's job that cost players game eligibility, put the school won probation and got kevin a three-year show cause penalty weren't considered "serious" by the arbitrator, it's not entirely clear to me what would be considered serious.

 

[nomar]

Does drunk driving constitute serious misconduct under the collective bargaining agreement, particularly if it was done on private time? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying if it's not expressly in the CBA the union will fight it. Same thing with an off color comment made off-campus rather than specific acts on campus.

Notes and I'm not defending or justifying either, but if acts that were done directly during KO's job that cost players game eligibility, put the school won probation and got kevin a three-year show cause penalty weren't considered "serious" by the arbitrator, it's not entirely clear to me what would be considered serious.

The basis for the arbitrator’s ruling, whether expressed or not, was that the stated reason for his termination was pretextual. Which we all know it was. So I wouldn’t look to KO’s case as an instructive example of what constitutes serious misconduct under the CBA.

Bringing embarrassment on your public employer is often grounds for legitimate termination, per the contractual terms.

It’s never black and white, and if there’s any daylight (or none at all) the union will fight it, I totally agree.

 

[CL82]

The basis for the arbitrator’s ruling, whether expressed or not, was that the stated reason for his termination was pretextual. Which we all know it was. So I wouldn’t look to KO’s case as an instructive example of what constitutes serious misconduct under the CBA.

Bringing embarrassment on your public employer is often grounds for legitimate termination, per the contractual terms.

It’s never black and white, and if there’s any daylight (or none at all) the union will fight it, I totally agree.

The basis for the arbitrator's ruling was that an individual employee and an employer cannot mutually agree to modify a collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator did not say that the context for dismissing Ollie was pretextual, rather he determined that the time for dismissal was premature. The arbitrator determined that Ollie's offenses were not serious until after the NCAA gave him a three year show cause ruling. If I recall correctly he expressly stated that had Connecticut waited until after the ruling, then Ollie's ask would be considered "a serious breach" which is the relevant standard under the collective bargaining agreement.

Stop and think about what a bad ruling that is. The actually acts didn't change because of the ruling. They either constituted a serious breach, or they did not. The determination by a third-party that they were so significant that they merited kevin getting a show cause order speaks to frustration of purpose of the contract, or perhaps, Kevin's inability to perform his duties, but does not change the nature of his original acts.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

After the apocalypse this guy is just going to be sitting on a rock in a barren hellscape arguing to no one about how the Ollie case was wrongly decided.