Dartmouth College filed a 17-page motion Thursday to suspend a scheduled March 5 election for the 15 men’s basketball players to unionize or, if the date is to remain, impound the ballots under the legal process plays out. The school also filed a 25-page motion asking NLRB regional director Laura Sacks to reopen the record so Dartmouth could present additional evidence.
Dartmouth’s motions accuse Sacks of erring in her Feb. 5 order finding the basketball players are employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. The school accuses her of engaging in a “misapplication” of what it terms “well-stablished” legal principles under employment law and failing to recognize that amateur athletes are governed by NCAA and Ivy League Conference rules.
More from Sportico.com
Sacks is unlikely to postpone the election or reopen the matter since she previously considered, and rejected, the school’s arguments. Sacks took nearly four months to weigh the competing arguments, evidence and witness testimony laid out in a four-day hearing last October before finalizing her 26-page order. She’s likely more inclined to accept Dartmouth’s alternative and less disruptive request to impound the ballots. There is precedent for that approach: A decade ago, Northwestern football players’ ballots were impounded as they sought employee recognition.
The impoundment of the basketball players’ ballots wouldn’t alter the vote’s date or prevent the vote from happening. Instead, it would keep the outcome confidential until the legal process plays out. Dartmouth is expected to appeal Sacks’ order to the agency’s board in D.C. The board will likely take months to consider it, and its decision could then be appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals and, finally, the U.S. Supreme Court—a timeline that might extend several years. Dartmouth would not have a duty to bargain with a players’ union while the ballots for formation of that union are impounded.
Dartmouth’s criticisms of Sacks are extensive. The school says no other NLRB case has led to the recognition of college athletes as employees, a point Dartmouth believes places Sacks’ order as out-of-step with precedent. Dartmouth also challenges Sacks for finding that the school controls the players as if they were employees. Dartmouth asserts that “any” control exercised by the school merely “relates either to Ivy League and/or NCAA’s rules” Dartmouth must follow regarding competitive equity and the uniform treatment of college athletes.
Dartmouth also says that Sacks mistakenly concluded the players receive compensation in exchange for their labor. Although Ivy League athletes do not receive athletic scholarships, Sacks stressed Dartmouth players receive a bevy of valuable benefits. They include preferential admissions into one of the most selective and elite universities in the country as well as valuable equipment and apparel, including expensive sneakers, meals, tickets, lodging and access to athletics facilities. Dartmouth insists that employment law precedent demands there be monetary compensation. Sacks, obviously, disagrees.
The school also insists that the election should be tabled since it involves “transient individuals.” Dartmouth says more than a quarter of the players will no longer be part of the team “a few hours after the upcoming scheduled election.” Dartmouth plays its final game of the season next Tuesday when it hosts Harvard. The school also claims that most of the team will be new by the academic year 2025. From that lens, future players are not getting a chance to weigh in on the formation of a bargaining unit.
This dynamic was, of course, already known to Sacks and anyone familiar with the “transient” existence of being a college student. Ordinarily college students graduate in four years. Other Dartmouth students are university employees, and some are in a union that bargains with the school. Those student employees are seemingly just as transient. Also, if future basketball players who join the team—and thus its union—don’t wish to remain in a union, they can seek measures to end the union relationship, such as decertification.
Earlier Thursday, Sportico exclusively reported on Dartmouth’s advice to players on the implications of unionizing. The advice raised positions that propose legally debatable viewpoints regarding potential loss of autonomy and team eligibility, as well as possible complications for international players who are on visas.
Best of Sportico.com
Source link
