Not to rain on the parade, but

[CL82]

Because the University is ignoring the factfinding/appeal procedures in the union manual, which constitute part of KO's contract, by hiring a replacement before finishing the process. It's the equivalent of having your sentencing before the verdict. It's not good faith.

That doesn't mean UConn shouldn't have bitten on Hurley. It just makes me wonder why they even bothered to claim cause.

The CBA expressly speaks to this. KO is entitled to 6 months notice or salary in lieu of notice.

His employment contract gives him additional benefits, if he is not discharged for "just cause."

UConn isn't limited in the least in replacing him and the fact that they have in no way impacts their just cause argument.

JMHO

(Edited to add BL's post and the discussion regarding it)

 

[dogfan96]

Smeared his name? This is what "smeared his name."

2016-17 Connecticut AAC 33 16 17 .485
2017-18 Connecticut AAC 32 14 18 .438

You know very well what he meant by that. Don't be snarky

 

[CL82]

You know very well what he meant by that. Don't be snarky

I do know what he meant, I just find the suggesting to be meritless. Firing someone for cause isn't "smearing (their) name." Lighten up Francis.

 

[dogfan96]

I do know what he meant, I just find the suggesting to be meritless. Firing someone for cause isn't "smearing (their) name." Lighten up Francis.

If there really is cause and you're not just doing it to try to get out of paying him.

 

[CL82]

If there really is cause and you're not just doing it to try to get out of paying him.

Read the contracts. There is cause.

 

[ctchamps]

@Excalibur the legal wrangling with KO will very unlikely impact Hurley's hire or his ability to hit the ground running. He'll talk to players and coaches he wants and tell them the situation is under control, which it is. The union cannot stop KO's firing. They can only support his monetary demands and argue on his behalf over that point. It comes down to "just cause" or not "just cause" and it's hard to determine how a ruling will go in spite of what we think.

The time it takes to resolve the monies for KO has benefits and detriments to both parties. In the end they'll come to an agreement. As fans it won't be quick enough for some of us and too rushed for others.

And @Javjudah the "no cause" process was more likely pushed by the people who are donating their monies to keep the program going. The AD and university may have pursued a different course of action but had to satisfy the donors.

I can guarantee by the time the season starts the only mention of any of this will be based on how the season goes and that debate will be among the fans and donors. The outside world only wants to see the program die, just as many of us have programs we feel the same about. So I'm not going to waste my time worrying about their thinking over this issue. Just think how quickly the world moved on over the UNC issue, a far greater travesty imo.

I'm more worried about the current roster. As constructed I'm concerned about this upcoming season. One or two impact recruits can change this a lot. That's the focus we should be concerned about and let the powers in charge handle the KO situation

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

I'm not disagreeing with you but those not as close to the situation might not see it the same way. That's why the sooner we can put this to bed, the better.

Agreed on some individuals' potential to view whatever they want with or without much basis in facts (lots of that floating around) & in particularly the latter; get 'er done & move forward.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Because the University is ignoring the factfinding/appeal procedures in the union manual, which constitute part of KO's contract, by hiring a replacement before finishing the process. It's the equivalent of having your sentencing before the verdict. It's not good faith.

That doesn't mean UConn shouldn't have bitten on Hurley. It just makes me wonder why they even bothered to claim cause.

I haven't read the contract (has anyone here?), but presumably they can fire him for cause or for any or no reason (in latter cases they owe the $). So unless there is something in Ollie or the union's contract*, I don't see why hiring someone else is forbidden. And of course there's the simple fact that the duties of the position mean someone needs to fill it - whether than is an assistant stepping in or a new coach under new contract or even a segway into that if old contract legally needs to be dissolved.

*I can't think of any situation where someone was fired and kept their position via an appeal? Maybe a reinstatement & vindication from a probationary period or suspension, but I cannot think of one instance of someone getting fired and reinstated by legal process. There was a firing/replacement of president of Market Basket in MA and then workers and customers revolted/went on strike and he was ultimately reinstated more or less by popular demand although I think he did legally contest his ouster as well.

 

[August_West]

Had they done that, we likely don't end up with Hurley.

Why?

Its just as possible that we end up with Hurley quicker. Remote possibility but just as likely as not getting him.

It cant be about "saving money" because we dont in fact know if we saved any money yet.

 

[Deadrody]

Of course they can't do it on their own. There are clearly legal avenues available for them to try to block or delay the hiring.

No. They have absolutely no recourse as far as delaying or preventing UConn from hiring Dan Hurley. None.

The only thing they're working towards is the best possible settlement for Ollie. They have absolutely no say, no input, no effect on the hiring of another coach.

Sure, I suppose, somehow the AAUP could take UConn to court proactively and try to get a TRO to prevent them from hiring a coach, but they have no basis for that and would get thrown out of court in short order. There is no basis for them to prevent Ollie from being fired outright, so they have no chance of winning on the merits of the their case, therefore, no TRO. But I'm about 99% sure they know that. So, in reality, there is nothing they can do regarding Hurley.

 

[Deadrody]

Unless the school can present a credible case that he failed to reasonably perform his job (a case that will be tough to make seeing how the program was nearly 3 million in the green), they ought to be raked over the coals for this in the media. It's an affront to everything the program has ever claimed to stand for.

Baffling. Now, somehow, success in a college basketball program is being defined as turning a profit ? That's the AD's job, not the coach.

Nonsense. Utter nonense. 95% win games, 5% follow the rules. Sucked at the 95% of late and there is at least some inclination by the University that he wasn't doing the 5%, either.

 

[Husky25]

I haven't read the contract (has anyone here?), but presumably they can fire him for cause or for any or no reason (in latter cases they owe the $). So unless there is something in Ollie or the union's contract*, I don't see why hiring someone else is forbidden. And of course there's the simple fact that the duties of the position mean someone needs to fill it - whether than is an assistant stepping in or a new coach under new contract or even a segway into that if old contract legally needs to be dissolved.

*I can't think of any situation where someone was fired and kept their position via an appeal? Maybe a reinstatement & vindication from a probationary period or suspension, but I cannot think of one instance of someone getting fired and reinstated by legal process. There was a firing/replacement of president of Market Basket in MA and then workers and customers revolted/went on strike and he was ultimately reinstated more or less by popular demand although I think he did legally contest his ouster as well.

Matt Reimondo, East Hampton Police Chief - 2010.

Position was "eliminated" by the Town Council. Got tons of pushback from the residents because it was presumed there was a vendetta from the Council chair. Went to referendum and he was reinstated 16 hours later.

@whaler11, care to weigh in?

 

[whaler11]

Matt Reimondo, East Hampton Police Chief - 2010.

Position was "eliminated" by the Town Council. Got tons of pushback from the residents because it was presumed there was a vendetta from the Council chair. Went to referendum and he was reinstated 16 hours later.

@whaler11, care to weigh in?

He kept his job AND got paid a settlement.

If you think the two party system sucks - come to East Hampton and you can see the mess a three party system creates.

If I could have wagered on UConn will have two head coaches two weeks ago I would have.

If you enjoy dark humor this is the school you want to love.

 

[Deadrody]

Everybody here seems to have some difficulty understanding how unions work.

The union represents the workers who are members. Period.

The collective bargaining agreement (CBA), aka contract is nothing but an agreement between the union employees and management.

Both sides can, and do, violate that agreement whether it be when certain classes of workers do work outside their class, or work OT outside the agreement, or if management directs workers to do things that are not in accordance with the agreement.

There is a process by which both sides can pursue corrective action in cases where the contract is violated. The vast majority of those would be through grievances filed by the union employees. Then management and the union will take that through the process to come to some agreement as to whether it was a violation, and how the affected union employees should be compensated (most cases).

Management can, contrary to opinions stated earlier, terminate any employee, union or not, for whatever reason they desire. The union can file the appropriate processes to fight that, and if that employee was terminated in violation of the agreement, the company will suffer. Not often will the NLRB or a court force them to take back an employee they believe to have been terminated appropriately, though I have seen that before. More likely, they'll reach an agreement on how to compensate the terminated employee, and possibly, fine the company for violating the contract, and therefore, labor laws.

If Kevin Ollie is that employee, the best he can hope for is his entire buyout. That's it. They can't force UConn to take him back (especially in this case given his actual job performance over the last two seasons) or to prevent them from hiring someone else.

 

[Deadrody]

Matt Reimondo, East Hampton Police Chief - 2010.

Position was "eliminated" by the Town Council. Got tons of pushback from the residents because it was presumed there was a vendetta from the Council chair. Went to referendum and he was reinstated 16 hours later.

@whaler11, care to weigh in?

Well, first all, that's different because they tried to eliminate the position, not fire him. Not to mention, it doesn't sound like that's a union issue as much as a "this is what the town wants" position

 

[Husky25]

Well, first all, that's different because they tried to eliminate the position, not fire him. Not to mention, it doesn't sound like that's a union issue as much as a "this is what the town wants" position

Substance over form. They couldn't "fire" him without eliminating the position because police chiefs are protected by just-cause provisions in CT State law.

The matter went to referendum. It was the exact opposite of what the town wanted. That is why he got his job back.

The only difference between the Chief and Ollie is that his direct superiors were either indifferent to him coming back (Town Manager who carried out the firing resigned in virtual disgrace.) or wouldn't be there within the next 6 months (5/7 of the Council were either voted out or didn't run). The Chair took a 4 year hiatus from the Council and now she is back on it. The Chief resigned prior to her returning.

 

[businesslawyer]

Smeared his name? This is what "smeared his name."

2016-17 Connecticut AAC 33 16 17 .485
2017-18 Connecticut AAC 32 14 18 .438

given that losing is not "just cause" under the contract, that's an assinine comment.

 

[businesslawyer]

I do know what he meant, I just find the suggesting to be meritless. Firing someone for cause isn't "smearing (their) name." Lighten up Francis.

You're 100% wrong. In almost all employment contracts, cause does not mean you didn't do a good enough job. It means you did something dishonest, nefarious or illegal.

 

[CL82]

given that losing is not "just cause" under the contract, that's an assinine comment.

Actually it may be when you look at the CBA. Putting that aside for the moment, as an attorney, is firing someone for cause "smearing their name."

Try thinking a moment before you answer.

 

[CL82]

You're 100% wrong. In almost all employment contracts, cause does not mean you didn't do a good enough job. It means you did something dishonest, nefarious or illegal.

I disagree with your assessment of what "almost all contracts" say but why beat around the bush here. What does it mean under this particular contract?

 

[businesslawyer]

Actually it may be when you look at the CBA. Putting that aside for the moment, as an attorney, is firing someone for cause "smearing their name."

Try thinking a moment before you answer.

Yes. When word gets out that someone was fired for cause, there is an assumption that they did something wrong besides not performing up to par.

 

[CL82]

Yes. When word gets out that someone was fired for cause, there is an assumption that they did something wrong besides not performing up to par.

So no one can ever fire anyone for cause?



Ollie's contract and the CBA define what cause is. His firing isn't exactly a secret, that's the nature of D1 head coaching gig. If in fact he did violate NCAA rules, or not act in a timely manner after notification of a staff member doing the same, it isn't going to be a secret. The notion that the University has "smeared" Ollie is just silly.

FWIW, read the contract and the particularly the CBA. There's more grounds than just NCAA violations.

 

[BlueDogs]

yeah, that's the only thing I could come up with.

But looking at the contract language, the University has a great position to stand on here.

The contract is clear on its face. The hiring of Hurley has no bearing on the substantive matter of whether a violation occurred establishing just cause for termination, other than arguing bad faith and unfair dealing which would be a stretch. The contract controls, not optics. The Union while obligated to defend Ollie is in a politically untenable position.