Dartmouth College's men's basketball team voted 13-2 to unionize on Tuesday. This is a potentially significant step toward undermining the long-standing amateur model of college athletics. The National Labor Relations Board said in a statement that university officials must now “negotiate in good faith” with the union, but Dartmouth officials said they were far from ready to acknowledge the problem.
Laura A. Sacks, director of the NLRB's Northeast Regional Office, ruled last month that the Dartmouth players were employees. Because “Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the men’s varsity basketball team, and the players perform that work in return. Compensation.” This declaration was made despite the fact that, unlike most athletes who play in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Ivy League players do not receive athletic scholarships.
The ruling directed the NLRB to conduct a secret ballot election to determine whether members of the current Dartmouth basketball team would join the Service Employees International Union (Local 560), which represents other Dartmouth employees. All but two of Dartmouth's 15 players voted to join the Union.
“This is a big day for our team,” said Dartmouth players Cade Haskins and Romeo Myrthil. “We stuck together all season and won this election. It is clear that as students, we too can become campus workers and union members. Dartmouth seems stuck in the past. Let’s work together to create a less exploitative business model for college sports. “Over the coming months, we will continue to talk with other players at Dartmouth and the Ivy League about forming a union and working together to advocate for the rights and welfare of players.”
Dartmouth filed a motion last week asking the district office to reconsider its ruling, either to stay the election or seize the ballots. The NLRB denied Dartmouth's request to reopen the matter and (after actual votes were cast Tuesday afternoon) voted 3 to 1 to deny the university's request to stay the election.
Also on Tuesday, Dartmouth appealed the district office's February decision, calling it “a dramatic and widespread departure from well-established board precedent.” The SEIU 560 union has five days to respond, and the five-member NLRB will consider the dual motion and issue a ruling.
But clarity may not be immediate. The board has no timeline for a ruling, and such a decision could take months. And if either party is unhappy with the outcome, the ruling can be challenged in a federal appeals court.
In a statement about the incident Tuesday, Dartmouth officials struck a defiant tone, suggesting they are unlikely to let the matter go any time soon.
“Dartmouth is proud to have built productive relationships for decades with the five unions that are now part of our campus community,” a statement from the university said. “We always negotiate in good faith and have deep respect for our 1,500 union colleagues, including the members of SEIU Local 560.
“However, in this isolated situation, students on the men’s basketball team are not employed by Dartmouth in any way. For Ivy League students who are varsity athletes, academics are paramount and athletic pursuits are part of the educational experience. Classifying these students as employees simply because they play basketball is not only inaccurate but also unprecedented. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to form a union.”
Last month's decision comes nearly a decade after another regional office of the Labor Commissioner declared Northwestern University football players employees. Northwestern players actually took a vote on whether or not to join a union, but the vote came as the full NLRB declined to make a decision on the matter, citing mostly procedural issues and leaving the question of whether college players are employees for another day. never saw the light of day. .
Tuesday seemed to be the day.
Mark Conrad, associate professor of law and ethics and director of the Sports Business Concentration at Fordham University's Gabelli School of Business, said the Dartmouth players' vote was “a watershed moment for college sports… Unless the full NLRB overturns the vote, we will have to deal with labor relations issues.” A new era of … In the concept of amateurism in college sports, that’s a big nail, maybe the biggest nail.”
He pointed out that federal labor laws apply only to private employers and not to public universities, which have many major college athletes. “However, if these students can claim to work for the school and (private) athletics, they may be considered employees of a ‘joint employer,’” Conrad said in an email.