Sportsfrog.com

The Vice President of the NHL, Colin Campbell, and his head of officiating, Stephen Walkom, didn’t seem to care for one of their officials. And they discussed it via e-mail, because really, what better place is there to discuss potentially illegal discriminatory practices?

You see, they had an official who did really well on his performance reviews. Good enough that he worked the playoffs for four out of five years in one stretch. In 2003-04, 21 out of 22 evaluations were positive. The next season, the positive reviews continued. Then he was elected to an executive position in his union. Suddenly, he was no longer a good enough ref to work the playoffs, and was subsequently fired.

And now, through his suit against the NHL, some very interesting emails between Campbell and Walkom have come to light. Such as this exchange that Campbell initiated:

“There must be a way to get rid of this guy. Is there a way we could track total minors called by referees this year?

Walkom responded in writing: “I think we have that data but it may work in (Warren’s) favour. That why I’m against data.”

Apart from the incredibly obvious appearance of discrimination here, can we take a second to examine that last sentence by the head of officiating in the NHL? You are against data? Really? You understand that data is composed of facts and information, right? Facts and information by which you can and should be evaluating your employees. But no, who wants information, right? You’d rather evaluate your officials based on other qualifications, right? Not facts or information. No, never that. You’d rather evaluate them on less factual qualifications. Such as, oh, I don’t know, whether or not they’re pro-union?

You. Stupid. Man.

Here we have a person in charge of evaluating a number of employees who is essentially saying that he does not believe in an objective evaluation of his employees. And he writes that down, and documents it, in an exchange with a professional colleague. Just. Wow. And Campbell doesn’t come across as the brightest, or most ethical, bulb either. In addition to the line above, this one is fun:

“Can we use this sh– to remove him or is there an HR (human resources) excuse?”

Allow me to paraphrase: Dear sir, I want to fire someone for no good reason. Can you please help me make up an imaginary reason to fire him? Really, really stupid and highly unethical? These guys should consider moving below the border and running for Congress.