Within the significance of the National Labor Relations Act, it has been almost eight times since Board local director Laura Sacks discovered that Dartmouth College people’s hockey players are people. And it’s been seven times since the People ‘ union joined the Services Employees International Union Local 560. But to date there has no bargaining between Dartmouth and the union, and the agency’s board has n’t indicated if it will accept Dartmouth’s request for review ( appeal ), let alone set a schedule.
A motion for summary judgment filed on Monday by Thomas E. Quigley, the NLRB General Counsel ( Jennifer Abruzzo ), could alter things.
Quigley requested that the board of directors, which has four users and one position, declare that Dartmouth had broken the NLRA by failing to acknowledge the union and negotiate in good faith. In order to accomplish this, Quigley wants the table to mandate Dartmouth to negotiate for a 12-month time. He also asks the table to guide Dartmouth that, “upon the Union’s demand,” the institution may agree to a two-hour negotiations schedule that they would meet with the union at least once a month. Moreover, within five weeks of each negotiations program, Dartmouth would create a summary to an Board compliance officer.

To help this place, Quigley argues that Dartmouth’s Sept. 24 response to the general attorney’s Sept. 3 problem “raised no material issue of fact” that may require an evidentiary hearing and that Dartmouth “has no true defense” to the complaint accusing the college of failing to bargain. The table should readily grant summary judgment because Dartmouth has publicly refused to deal with the union and because appropriate precedent mandates management to deal with a union, according to Quigley.
Dartmouth focused on the claim that the people are no employees in its response rather than refuted the fact that it had not bargained with the coalition. Dartmouth motives that since, in its see, the participants are not employees, the class need not deal with the coalition.
Although Quigley’s action concerns constitutional responsibilities for management to deal with a union, it addresses a much bigger issue: Are the Dartmouth players employees?
If the table rejects Quigley’s request and orders Dartmouth to agreement, Dartmouth may file a federal court request for review, triggering a legal battle that may eventually lead to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the board denies the action, the position may proceed with Dartmouth, waiting for the table to decide if it will regard its elegance, not bargaining with the union, which demands bargaining. The length of time the case will be heard in court will determine how long it will take to get there.
The outcome of the Dartmouth case is important to Dartmouth men’s basketball players as well as to Dartmouth athletes on other teams and athletes at other D1 private colleges, too. Other private colleges ‘ athletes could rely on that finding to support their claims that the Big Green players are employees if they are. Since state law governs their employment and bargaining rights, and those rights vary widely by state, the situation for athletes at public universities is different.

However, in a separate proceeding in California, an NLRB administrative law judge could find that University of Southern California football and men’s and women’s basketball players are employees of their school, conferences and the NCAA, with conferences and the NCAA as joint employers. Even if they are not yet recognized as employees of their schools, a decision like this could allow athletes from both private and public D1 schools to be considered members of their conferences and the NCAA.
The board will likely have to decide the motion in weeks. The Big Green’s 2024-25 season starts on Nov. 4 when they host the Vermont State University-Lyndon Hornets at Leede Arena in Hanover, N. H.