Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="BlueDogs, post: 2625140, member: 891"] The just cause aspect comes of KO's contract- see the contract Sections I referenced above (I think 10.1 (e)). It says if termination is grounded in just cause, Section 13 of the Collective Bargaing Agreement applies. As to the other point, courts routinely interpret arbitration provisions as mandatory and binding in the absence of express language otherwise. If a party were to commence a case in court, there is strong likelihood is would be removed by a moving party wanting arbitration. The reason is there is a strong preference to move cases out of the courts (judicial economy). But, Connecticut has a fairly unique prejudgment remedy process that does permit a PJR even if there is an arbitration required on the merits. I don't think the PJR route helps much in Ollie's case except that in a PJR a court must find that the applicant is more likely than not to prevail on the merits (its kind of a mini-trial) which results in interim relief such as an attachment of assets. The arbitration panel however is not bound by the court's preliminary finding, but it can influence it. Finally, courts will jump through extraordinary hoops to avoid any de novo review of a case adjudicated in arbitration. Maybe a judge would take a run at it because it is a high profile matter and wants a little publicity. I haven't spent enough time on these contracts to tease out the finer points. There is a referential defect though resulting from incorporated language that may vitiate the mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,857

Messages: 4,412,742

Members: 10,239

Latest member: Dondadonone