UConn Trying to Remove Coaches from Faculty Union

[8893]

UConn trying to remove coaches from faculty union

After paying former basketball coach Kevin Ollie more than $11 million in part because of...

www.nhregister.com

 

[Chief00]

UConn trying to remove coaches from faculty union

After paying former basketball coach Kevin Ollie more than $11 million in part because of...

www.nhregister.com

Long overdue, especially in major sports.

 

[Zissou]

Paywall. Anything beyond UConn lost, so trying to limit future liability?

 

[8893]

Paywall. Anything beyond UConn lost, so trying to limit future liability?

Sorry, since archive stopped working I don't know how to post the free version.

But to answer your question, not really; just a report that the two sides met to try to come to an agreement but didn't accomplish anything, and some quotes from lawyers unrelated to either party about what it means.

 

[SubbaBub]

Good. They are not typical state service jobs. Pretending they are is a farce. Anything that a union might provide can simply be written into the individual contracts.

 

[CL82]

UConn coaches being a part of the faculty union is in artifact from the days of when coaches were required to teach as a part of their coaching duties. What happened in the Kevin Ollie case was that he had essentially two contracts. The first was the standard teachers union contract and the second was his contract as a coach. In the coaching contract it noted several specific grounds for termination that we considered just cause, including committing violations of NCAA or university policy, being aware of violations and not reporting them, and lying about violations to either the NCAA or the University of Connecticut. UConn relied on that provision to terminate Ollie for just cause. The arbiter said that both Kevin and UConn had no ability to modify the union contract and effectively wrote the language that UConn was relying upon out of the contract. UConn instead got forced into a more amorphous argument that the breach constituted a “serious“ violation under the union contract

The arbiter ultimately decided that the violation wasn’t serious until the NCAA acted upon it. In essence, saying that Connecticut couldn’t fire Kevin until the NCAA had sanctioned him making it impossible for him to do his job. Of course, the failure to take action on the breach once it was discovered would have meant much more significant penalties from the NCAA against the University. So, in the arbiter’s world the University can’t fire someone until the NCAA sanctions them, but in the NCAA‘s world if the university were to continue to allow them to work until being sanctioned the school would be subject to a failure to monitor penalty. That’s one heck of a Catch 22.

Removing coaches from the union contract would correct that problem. There are other ways that the issue could be addressed if this effort fails, but that’s risky since the University would remain subject to the whims of an arbiter’s interpretation.

 

[huskymedic]

Paywall. Anything beyond UConn lost, so trying to limit future liability?

Sorry, since archive stopped working I don't know how to post the free version.

Side door access to article here

I’m pretty sure this isn’t the first set of contract negotiations to have occurred over this subject. All depends on what the Union wants in exchange for changing the bargaining unit composition.

 

[Zissou]

UConn coaches being a part of the faculty union is in artifact from the days of when coaches were required to teach as a part of their coaching duties. What happened in the Kevin Ollie case was that he had essentially two contracts. The first was the standard teachers union contract and the second was his contract as a coach. In the coaching contract it noted several specific grounds for termination that we considered just cause, including committing violations of NCAA or university policy, being aware of violations and not reporting them, and lying about violations to either the NCAA or the University of Connecticut. UConn relied on that provision to terminate Ollie for just cause. The arbiter said that both Kevin and UConn had no ability to modify the union contract and effectively wrote the language that UConn was relying upon out of the contract. UConn instead got forced into a more amorphous argument that the breach constituted a “serious“ violation under the union contract

The arbiter ultimately decided that the violation wasn’t serious until the NCAA acted upon it. In essence, saying that Connecticut couldn’t fire Kevin until the NCAA had sanctioned him making it impossible for him to do his job. Of course, the failure to take action on the breach once it was discovered would have meant much more significant penalties from the NCAA against the University. So, in the arbiter’s world the University can’t fire someone until the NCAA sanctions them, but in the NCAA‘s world if the university were to continue to allow them to work until being sanctioned the school would be subject to a failure to monitor penalty. That’s one heck of a Catch 22.

Removing coaches from the union contract would correct that problem. There are other ways that the issue could be addressed if this effort fails, but that’s risky since the University would remain subject to the whims of an arbiter’s interpretation.

You have stated UConn’s view, as the party that lost the argument.

Kevin’s view is that the NCAA action was unjust and that UConn and the NCAA cooperated in a case against him in an unjust sanction, and in supporting a cause for a firing action. Kevin’s view is that he finally was able to get an impartial review, he won, and it exonerates him from the unjust claims against him.

The arbiter ruled in Kevin’s favor, and then both sides spin their version beyond the actual ruling.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Long overdue. It's absurd that they are in a union with employees who aren't remotely similar in their roles or compensation.

 

[UCDaveD]

An $11M lesson that was long overdue.

 

[NJHoops]

A Villanova fan on a UConn message board talking about Kevin Ollie. What circle of hell is that?

 

[CL82]

You have stated UConn’s view, as the party that lost the argument.

Kevin’s view is that the NCAA action was unjust and that UConn and the NCAA cooperated in a case against him in an unjust sanction, and in supporting a cause for a firing action. Kevin’s view is that he finally was able to get an impartial review, he won, and it exonerates him from the unjust claims against him.

The arbiter ruled in Kevin’s favor, and then both sides spin their version beyond the actual ruling.

No, I stated the facts from the arbiters decision. Your imagination as to what Kevin‘s view is, is, with all due respect, irrelevant.

In any event it’s tough to say that Kevin was “exonerated“ after the NCAA gave him a three years show cause penalty. As noted above, the arbiter didn’t in anyway dispute that decision and indicated that the university could have terminated Kevin without further payment had they acted after that decision took place. That’s, at best, a timing issue and in no way an “exoneration.”

 

[Chief00]

UConn coaches being a part of the faculty union is in artifact from the days of when coaches were required to teach as a part of their coaching duties. What happened in the Kevin Ollie case was that he had essentially two contracts. The first was the standard teachers union contract and the second was his contract as a coach. In the coaching contract it noted several specific grounds for termination that we considered just cause, including committing violations of NCAA or university policy, being aware of violations and not reporting them, and lying about violations to either the NCAA or the University of Connecticut. UConn relied on that provision to terminate Ollie for just cause. The arbiter said that both Kevin and UConn had no ability to modify the union contract and effectively wrote the language that UConn was relying upon out of the contract. UConn instead got forced into a more amorphous argument that the breach constituted a “serious“ violation under the union contract

The arbiter ultimately decided that the violation wasn’t serious until the NCAA acted upon it. In essence, saying that Connecticut couldn’t fire Kevin until the NCAA had sanctioned him making it impossible for him to do his job. Of course, the failure to take action on the breach once it was discovered would have meant much more significant penalties from the NCAA against the University. So, in the arbiter’s world the University can’t fire someone until the NCAA sanctions them, but in the NCAA‘s world if the university were to continue to allow them to work until being sanctioned the school would be subject to a failure to monitor penalty. That’s one heck of a Catch 22.

Removing coaches from the union contract would correct that problem. There are other ways that the issue could be addressed if this effort fails, but that’s risky since the University would remain subject to the whims of an arbiter’s interpretation.

Good point about how the NCAA would have punished UConn even more harshly if they did not take preemptive action before KO was officially sanction.
Help me out here, how is it ok not to have anything to do with the employment contract ……with one minor exception - the $3m+ per year totaling over $10m over 3 years?
Why isn’t that irrelevant like everything else in the employment contract? Yet, the arbitrator then connects that to the lifetime employment the professor Union CBA basically guarantees, absent murdering someone or not referring to someone using the proper pronoun identifications.

 

[CL82]

Good point about how the NCAA would have punished UConn even more harshly if they did not take preemptive action before KO was officially sanction.
Help me out here, how is it ok not to have anything to do with the employment contract ……with one minor exception - the $3m+ per year totaling over $10m over 3 years?
Why isn’t that irrelevant like everything else in the employment contract? Yet, the arbitrator then connects that to the lifetime employment the professor Union CBA basically guarantees, absent murdering someone or not referring to someone using the proper pronoun identifications.

That’s a good question. Off the top of my head, I would say that the answer is that there is public policy against allowing an employee to modify a collective bargaining agreement. Since the just cause provision in Kevin Ollie’s contract, arguably, changed the collective bargaining position that an event must be “serious“ to be grounds for termination without further pay the arbiter treated it as being void. On the other hand, since the CBA does not expressly layout Kevin Ollie‘s salary, then that agreement between the school and KO would continue to be valid.

I don’t remember that there was a specific discussion on that issue, per se, but if I had to apply a logical overlay to the decision that was rendered, what I said above would be it.

 

[Zissou]

No, I stated the facts from the arbiters decision. Your imagination as to what Kevin‘s view is, is, with all due respect, irrelevant.

In any event it’s tough to say that Kevin was “exonerated“ after the NCAA gave him a three years show cause penalty. As noted above, the arbiter didn’t in anyway dispute that decision and indicated that the university could have terminated Kevin without further payment had they acted after that decision took place. That’s, at best, a timing issue and in no way an “exoneration.”

Attorney Jacques Parenteau called Thursday’s ruling from arbitrator Mark Irvings a “total vindication” for Ollie.
Parenteau said the arbitrator’s ruling shows that decision by the NCAA was “erroneous and unfounded.”

“This arbitration clearly established — after 33 days of hearings and the testimony and cross examination of actual witnesses under oath — that Kevin Ollie did not violate the NCAA rules that were used to justify the draconian sanctions imposed on him,” Parenteau and co-counsel William Madsen said in a statement. “The Arbitrator correctly found that there was no just cause to terminate Kevin Ollie’s employment as the head coach of an NCAA basketball team.”

Did I misrepresent Kevin’s view?

 

[CL82]

Attorney Jacques Parenteau called Thursday’s ruling from arbitrator Mark Irvings a “total vindication” for Ollie.
Parenteau said the arbitrator’s ruling shows that decision by the NCAA was “erroneous and unfounded.”

“This arbitration clearly established — after 33 days of hearings and the testimony and cross examination of actual witnesses under oath — that Kevin Ollie did not violate the NCAA rules that were used to justify the draconian sanctions imposed on him,” Parenteau and co-counsel William Madsen said in a statement. “The Arbitrator correctly found that there was no just cause to terminate Kevin Ollie’s employment as the head coach of an NCAA basketball team.”

Did I misrepresent Kevin’s view?

Perhaps a better question is did you fairly paraphrase Ollie‘s attorney. My answer is the same regardless. Public posturing by a party or their counsel is irrelevant and does not change the decision that was rendered.

 

[Zissou]

Perhaps a better question is did you fairly paraphrase Ollie‘s attorney. My answer is the same regardless. Public posturing by a party or their counsel is irrelevant and does not change the decision that was rendered.

“Your imagination as to what Kevin‘s view is, is, with all due respect, irrelevant.” It’s not my imagination, it’s what Kevin’s side has expressed. You imply that I’m making this up.

Like I said, you have restated UConn’s spin after they lost the decision.

Kevin’s spin is different. He won the case.

I didn’t say his spin was accurate. I said they both stretch the ruling to their own narrative.

 

[Zissou]

This thread feels like deja vu. I had to look it up…

https://the-boneyard.com/threads/kevin-ollie’s-lawyers-ask-for-depositions-from-ncaa-president-mark-emmert-and-national-search-firm-as-contract-dispute-with-uconn.156029/page-5

 

[Zissou]

80% is a preposterous figure given the relative strength of the parties' cases. Something like 20% would make sense simply to end the saga, and even at that it's basically a gift to Ollie since his case is so weak.

UConn's case is FAR stronger than Ollie's. Any objective party can see that.

Moral of the story: If you want to keep your job, don't suck at it. If you don't want to keep your job but want to get paid on the remainder of you contract, don't breach it multiple times and lie to your employer and a outside regulating agency. It won't end well for you.

As I said early on, UConn should have settled. They would have saved a few million on the amount due and a few million in legal fees.

Some thought that this was a slam dunk case for UConn. The case did, in fact, end well for Kevin.

 

[Zissou]

When this thing is all over, KO won't get any more money, he'll have alienated Jim Calhoun and the university, and have made himself a pariah in college basketball. None of that needed to happen.

 

[HooperScooper]

Attorney Jacques Parenteau called Thursday’s ruling from arbitrator Mark Irvings a “total vindication” for Ollie.
Parenteau said the arbitrator’s ruling shows that decision by the NCAA was “erroneous and unfounded.”

“This arbitration clearly established — after 33 days of hearings and the testimony and cross examination of actual witnesses under oath — that Kevin Ollie did not violate the NCAA rules that were used to justify the draconian sanctions imposed on him,” Parenteau and co-counsel William Madsen said in a statement. “The Arbitrator correctly found that there was no just cause to terminate Kevin Ollie’s employment as the head coach of an NCAA basketball team.”

Did I misrepresent Kevin’s view?

Do we have to go through this again? It's over. Lock this thread please.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

A Villanova fan on a UConn message board talking about Kevin Ollie. What circle of hell is that?

Even worse, he's got the better argument. I mean, if I were the guy who posted this -

UConn's case is FAR stronger than Ollie's. Any objective party can see that.

Moral of the story: If you want to keep your job, don't suck at it. If you don't want to keep your job but want to get paid on the remainder of you contract, don't breach it multiple times and lie to your employer and a outside regulating agency. It won't end well for you.

- I would maybe consider not posting on the topic anymore.

 

[NJHoops]

Even worse, he's got the better argument. I mean, if I were the guy who posted this -

UConn's case is FAR stronger than Ollie's. Any objective party can see that.

Moral of the story: If you want to keep your job, don't suck at it. If you don't want to keep your job but want to get paid on the remainder of you contract, don't breach it multiple times and lie to your employer and a outside regulating agency. It won't end well for you.

- I would maybe consider not posting on the topic anymore.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[BlueMAB]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

He quoted someone else when responding to you, but I believe he's agreeing with you