The National Hockey League filed a lawsuit against its Players’ Association on Wednesday that seeks to restore Dennis Wideman‘s 20-game suspension.
The Calgary Flames defenceman’s original 20-game ban for cross-checking NHL linesman Don Henderson from behind on Jan. 27 was appealed to neutral arbitrator James Oldham and reduced to 10 games on March 10.
In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the NHL states Oldham “applied his own brand of industrial justice” by ignoring the findings of commissioner Gary Bettman (who upheld the original suspension) and cutting Wideman’s ban in half, Reuters reports.
“We are disappointed that the NHL has chosen to challenge the award of the Neutral Discipline Arbitrator (NDA) in court, as the collective bargaining agreement clearly provides that the decision of the NDA is final. We are confident this action is completely without merit and that the court will agree,” the NHLPA said in a statement.
Wideman had served 19 games of the original 20-game suspension when Oldham lessened his ban. He was to have been refunded nine games’ worth of the salary he missed while sidelined.
Henderson suffered a concussion, according to the NHL, and has not returned to work.
Through a league spokesman, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly offered the following comment to Yahoo! Sports:
“We can confirm that the National Hockey League today filed an action in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York seeking to vacate Arbitrator James Oldham’s arbitration decision reducing the League’s supplementary discipline suspension to Player Dennis Wideman from 20 to 10 games. We believe that Arbitrator Oldham, in reaching his decision, exceeded his contractual authority by failing to properly apply the parties’ collectively bargained standard of review. Today’s action was motivated primarily by our regard for the collective bargaining process and the importance of maintaining and safeguarding the parties’ reasonable expectations arising from the agreements made in that process. The timing of today’s filing was dictated exclusively by the requirements of the federal rules governing these actions. We do not intend to offer any further comment pending the conclusion of the court’s review.”
