NLRB Calls Audible — No Union for Northwestern | Blogs | Labor & Employment Law Perspectives

Over a year ago, the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Chicago concluded that scholarship athletes on the Northwestern University football team were “employees” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, giving them the right to unionize and bargain over terms and conditions of their purported employment. The ruling garnered national attention and raised the specter of a massive shift in how college athletics operated. However, on August 17, a panel of the NLRB reviewing the Regional Director’s ruling declined to exercise jurisdiction over the petition to unionize Northwestern University’s football players. Essentially declaring that the Regional Director’s initial authorization of the petition was a false start, the NLRB emphasized the practical realities of the case in concluding that allowing the petition would not “promote stability in labor relations.” It noted that the vast majority of Northwestern’s FBS competitors are public universities over which the NLRB has no jurisdiction. Since major college football is interconnected, the NLRB reasoned that allowing one school’s players to be unionized would not promote labor relations and might upset the balance of competition. Northwestern, the only private school in the Big Ten within the NLRB’s jurisdiction, did not need another competitive hurdle, and issued a statement, along with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), applauding the decision.

While so ruling, the Board did not overrule the Regional Director’s determination that the players were “employees.” In fact, if anything, it implied that they were. Also, the Board painstakingly and repeatedly stated that its decision was limited to Northwestern and this particular situation and invited a replay if the game changed. It also positively commented on recent pro-player changes implemented by the NCAA and Northwestern. This is a final ruling, and therefore the clock has run out for the petitioning players.

The decision surprised the odds makers in that the NLRB exercised real restraint. However, the narrowness of the ruling should not raise expectations that the NLRB will be shy about exercising jurisdiction in other cases or advancing a pro-labor agenda, as it has repeatedly done over the past several years.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.