The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Are University Football Players "Employees" and Entitled to Unionize?

by David Doorey March 27, 2014
written by David Doorey March 27, 2014

There was a big decision from the Illinois region of the National Labor Relations Board yesterday, finding that Northwestern University football players are “employees” and therefore entitled to unionize.  Here’s the CNN story.  The players association has been aided by the United Steelworkers.  They want to bargain a better health care insurance system for the players, and a requirement for the university to study the effects of concussions on football players, among other things.
The Decision
Here is the decision of the NLRB’s Regional Director.
Section 2(3) of the Act says that the legislation applies to any “employee”.  The NLRB has looked to the common law test of ’employee’ to construe this language, which emphasizes the degree control the alleged employer has over the worker and whether the worker receives payment for services.

NLRB Rules College Football Players can Unionize

NLRB Rules College Football Players can Unionize


The NW football players perform an extremely valuable service for the university.  The football program brings in millions of revenue dollars.  The players receive funding in the form of scholarships that pay for their tuition, fees, room, board and books, amounting to about $75,000 per year:

“While it is true that the players do not receive a paycheck in the traditional sense, they nevertheless receive a substantial economic benefit for playing football.”

In exchange for this money, the player becomes subject to a long list of employer-made rules.  Their daily schedule is largely fixed by the employer, especially during the August training camp, but also during the year.  Players work 40 to 50 hours a week on football activities during the school year.  NW controls where the players can live, imposes rules on the use of social media, has a dress code, and can discipline players who are late for practice:

“In addition, the coaches have control over nearly every aspect of the players’ private lives by virtue of the fact that there are many rules that they must follow under threat of discipline and/or the loss of a scholarship. The players have restrictions placed on them and/or have to obtain permission from the coaches before they can: (1) make their living arrangements; (2) apply for outside employment;34 (3) drive personal vehicles; (4) travel off campus; (5) post items on the Internet; (6) speak to the media; (7) use alcohol and drugs; and (8) engage in gambling. “

Considering these facts, and the law relating to ’employee’ status, the NLRB’s Regional Director found that the football players with scholarships were ’employees’ under the NLRA and therefore entitled to unionize.  A certification vote was ordered.  However, as happens in almost every instance in the US, the employer will appeal which will delay the vote for months, if not years.
Implications
Assuming that the NLRB upholds the ruling, the case could have big implications for university sports in the USA.  NCAA sports is HUGE business, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year for the universities.  School athletes’ sweaters are sold for millions, yet the athletes don’t receive any of those revenues.  They receive free education.  If taking a scholarship to play a sport at university makes you an employee, then employment laws apply, including labor relations laws.  Unions could bargain a greater share of the huge profits from NCAA sports for the athletes, using that money to pay for better health care insurance, among other benefits.  Obviously, the NCAA would prefer to keep all of the revenues for itself, so expect a big push back.
Questions for Discussion
The former president of Northwestern said in a speech recently that a win by the football players could cause NW and other universities to drop football from the programs.  American law, like Canadian, prohibits an employer from punishing an employee in any way because that employee supported a union.  Do you think these unfair labor practice laws could prevent Northwestern from cancelling the football program in the short or long run?
A while back, some junior players in the Canadian Hockey League considered forming a union for amateur hockey players.  That didn’t go anywhere (yet).  Junior hockey players also receive room and board and a small weekly stipend. They are subject to an array of company and league imposed rules.  In Ontario, the definition of ’employee’ in Labour Relations Act says only this:  “employee includes a dependent contractor”.   Do you think that a junior hockey player would be considered an employee under Ontario law?

2 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Why Nonunion Workers Have a Right to Strike in US, But Not in Canada
next post
Unifor's Toyota Campaign Demonstrates Flaw in Labour Law Model

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
9h

I can’t believe that Almost Famous came out 23 years ago.

Time is flying by.

Reply on Twitter 1622776388179705859 Retweet on Twitter 1622776388179705859 3 Like on Twitter 1622776388179705859 14 Twitter 1622776388179705859
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
10h

I had an LLM student who had a part-time job phantom writing labor arbitration decisions based on arbitrator’s notes and instructions.

Like law clerks do for judges (except parties don’t know about the phantom arb writer).

Is using a machine different? Interesting debate.

Valerio De Stefano @valeriodeste

The crucial part starts on p. 5, where the Court reports the answers to the legal questions they posed to ChatGPT. Then, at the end of p. 6, the Court adopts the arguments given in these answers as grounds for its decision.

Reply on Twitter 1622759377944952834 Retweet on Twitter 1622759377944952834 5 Like on Twitter 1622759377944952834 8 Twitter 1622759377944952834
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
11h

Quebec passed anti-scab legislation in 1977, BC in 1993, & Ontario 1993-95.

Hysterical claims that these laws cause job losses & loss of investment aren't supported by evidence. Businesses just don't like them.

Short 🧵

1/

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

We’re banning replacement workers, as we said on Oct. 19th.

We’re working with unions and employers to get the balance right.

As agreed, government will introduce legislation by the end of this year.

Reply on Twitter 1622745098088861702 Retweet on Twitter 1622745098088861702 16 Like on Twitter 1622745098088861702 39 Twitter 1622745098088861702
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.