The Dartmouth College men’s hockey players are represented by the services people ‘ international coalition Local 560, which filed an unfair labor training complaint with the NLPRB on Wednesday, claiming that the institution had violated its contract.
According to the National Labor Relations Act, an workplace is prohibited from bargaining with a negotiations representative about wages, hours, and other terms of employment with salaried employees. In general, management is required to meet and speak with the member and to share important and necessary information for negotiations regarding pay, coverage, health care, disciplinary techniques, support service, and various other aspects of work.

The cost, filed by New Hampshire work attorney Jake Krupski on behalf of the Local 560, refers to Dartmouth’s general lawyers informing Krupksi on March 18 the class was declining the government’s need to discuss. ” The Trustees of Dartmouth College”, the command says, “refused and continue to refuse to deal with Regional 560”.
The Dartmouth participants were considered employees by the NLRB, according to local chairman Laura Sacks earlier this year. She stressed the athletes perform work for Dartmouth in exchange for compensation, which, in this context, refers to things such as per diem payments, foods, room and board, expensive sneakers and objective admissions to an elite universities that completely pays an admitted person’s need for financial assistance. According to Sacks, Dartmouth also has the right to control that work and makes use of that right, such as by directing students to submit course work that complies with their basketball scheduling obligations. The players then voted to join SEIU Local 560 in a 13-2 vote.
The players, who are now considered Dartmouth employees as well as students, have so far declined to sue the university for failing to pay the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Dartmouth has thus far refused to bargain.
In general, Dartmouth is not opposed to bargaining with its student employees. In fact, the school has bargained with other unionized Dartmouth students, including those employed in dining establishments, regarding pay and other working conditions. But Dartmouth, noting its amateurism obligations to the NCAA and Ivy League conference, has n’t taken the same step with the basketball players.
If the NLRB concurs with the SEIU Local 560 about Dartmouth’s failure to bargain, it will instruct the school to bargain. The organization would then seek a court order to impose its order if Dartmouth declines to do so, triggering a legal process. The player may see the procedure as an opportunity to challenge to a federal judge that the school is not required to bargain.
Dartmouth has petitioned the agency’s board—which currently consists of four members, including former MLBPA general counsel David Prouty—to review Sacks ‘ order. The agency recently announced it had accepted for consideration amicus briefs filed by U. S. pro sports unions, who advocate for Dartmouth players, and by the NCAA, who advocate for Dartmouth. Thursday is the deadline for submissions of amicus briefs by others.

If the agency grants Dartmouth’s request to review, it would set off a multi-step process that could last into next year before a decision is made. In a federal court of appeal, a board’s decision may be challenged. If the board instead decline’s Dartmouth’s request, the school would likely then petition for federal court review on whether the players are employees. Either way, expect a federal court, and potentially the U. S. Supreme Court, to have the last word.
In a statement, SEIU Local 560 president Chris Peck—whose union represents about 500 workers across Dartmouth including at a power plant, museum and in the athletic department as well as custodians, security officers and tradespeople—said Dartmouth’s “public refusal to bargain in good faith” is not only a violation of labor law but also” Dartmouth’s very own Code of Ethics”.
He argued that Dartmouth acknowledged that” student employment is entirely compatible with Dartmouth’s educational mission,” but that the university is treating its varsity athletes” to a different standard than other students as per the” student athlete handbook,” as well as Ivy League and NCAA regulations.
Peck also suggested that it might be foolish to adhere to NCAA regulations that are currently facing fierce legal scrutiny and could effectively collapse if the House Settlement, a multibillion dollar deal, is approved by the courts.
The tide has changed, and Dartmouth administration should take advantage of this opportunity to show leadership, as the players have, and live up to its own rhetoric regarding the importance of both community and dialogue, as the expensive legal judgments continue to pile up against the NCAA.
The college released a statement on Wednesday. The regional director made an extraordinary mistake in determining that these students are employees, according to the statement.” Dartmouth’s decades-long commitment to athletics is an extension of our academic mission. ” In March, we appealed the regional director’s decision to the full NLRB and continue to await their review. In the meantime, we have declined to bargain with SEIU Local 560 on this matter. The only tool we can use to ensure that this matter is reviewed by a federal court is this, despite the fact that it is a unique development in Dartmouth’s long history of labor negotiations. We anticipated that they would file an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB as a result of this action, which they did and on which we will also file an appeal.
( The final two sentences of this article have been updated with quotes from a Dartmouth statement. )