Skip to main content

Breaking: Northwestern Football Players Cannot Form Union


Early last year, I posted an article about several Northwestern University football players argued they were "employees" and sought to unionize.  (College Football Players: Student Athletes & Now Union Members?).  As things developed, the Chicago district of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") ruled in March of 2014 that the student athletes qualified as "employees" and therefore were allowed to unionize.  (College Football Players Given Green Light to Unionize).  Unsurprisingly, Northwestern University filed a brief with the National Labor Relations Board in D.C. and asked the Board to overturn the decision from the NLRB's Chicago Regional Director.  (Northwestern University Files Its Brief to Contest Initial NLRB Decision).  However, the Northwestern football team conducted a vote in April of 2014 on whether to unionize.  The results of that vote were sealed until the outcome of the NLRB matter was resolved.

And now, many, many months later, we have a ruling from the NLRB on the matter.  Earlier this morning, the NLRB unanimously decided not to rule on the Northwestern union case and dismissed the petition.  In doing so, the NLRB's decision to overturn the March 2014 ruling that allowed the football players to unionize ended the 18 month long movement for these players.  Interestingly, the Board reached its decision by declining jurisdiction on the grounds that "Asserting jurisdiction would not promoted labor stability due to the nature of NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS).  By statute, the Board does not have jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities, which constitute 108 of the roughly 125 FBS teams."  Had the

Note, the Board's ruling cannot be appealed and the votes case by the Northwestern football players last April will not be counted.  Many others, including myself, find this ruling to be somewhat surprising.  The NLRB is made up primarily of President Obama's appointees and is considered liberal and union-friendly.  (Especially over the past few months as several union-friendly rulings have been made by the Board).  A ruling that would have upheld the Chicago Regional Director's decision would not have been surprising...if anything, it was somewhat expected.

Readers should note, however, that the Board also stated in its ruling that "This decision is narrowly focused to apply only to the players in this case and does not preclude reconsideration of this issue in the future."  As a result, it is important to consider what this ruling did NOT do:  The Board did not determine whether the players were "employees" under that National Labor Relations Act.  Therefore, the door was left open as to whether other college athletes could qualify as "employees" and win the right to unionize.  By skirting the issue and only focusing on the jurisdiction matter, the NLRB did not delve into the more pressing matters that this case presented. 

At this point, this is the end of the road for these Northwestern football players...while there are no unionization petitions active in college football at this time, something tells me this is not the last we will hear of college football players attempting to unionize. 


A copy of the NLRB's ruling can be found here:  apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4581d7160d

For additional information:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/08/17/northwestern-union-vote-nlrb-football/31647545/
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...