The union representing Dartmouth College female’s hockey players requested on Tuesday that the National Labor Relations Board withdraw its petition asking for wages for the team in a shift that punts the college-athlete-as-employee issue to another time.
Following Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 47th leader, the NLRB will likely face legal and political challenges as a result. It appears to reflect awareness of the legal requirements for bringing an appeal of a court-decided negative agency decision.
The Service Employees International Union, Local 560’s request was made to the NLRB Region 01 business in Boston. A plea of this nature implies that the union freely no longer wishes to continue and informs the NLRB that it is not interested in the agency’s authority to enforce any rights.

Departure is not done automatically, and it must be approved by the organization. The union wants the company to review the plea before President Joe Biden’s phrase ends on January 20. The schedule of the request is in line with that request. Additionally, it is not an isolated movement in that other labour issues are anticipated over the next few weeks as depiction withdrawal requests are anticipated.
The federation and the people, who were directly involved in this determination, faced two major places of NLRB-related issues.
First, there is a concern that Trump will appoint someone who is less likely to support the recognition of college athletes as employees rather than Jennifer Abruzzo, the latest NLRB general counsel. Abruzzo filed a powerful note in 2021 in which it was claimed that D-1 college athletes were misclassified as student players in violation of the NLRA. The Dartmouth players ( and others ) have used the memorandum to bolster their legal arguments.
Although not a part of the company’s board, the general guidance plays a vital role by advising table users and overseeing investigations. It’s unfamiliar who will exchange Abruzzo, but Trump’s first word general counsel, Peter Robb, rescinded a document authored by his father, Richard Griffin, that concluded D-1 school sports are employees.
Abruzzo’s successor may revoke her 2021 letter and issue a fresh letter asserting that university sportsmen are not employees. A novel general counsel was ask board members and possibly judges to determine that Dartmouth players are no employees if the matter is still before the NLRB. For a development could stifle other colleges ‘ efforts to promote player labor.

On the other hand, there’s no assurance that Abruzzo’s son did oppose school sports as people. In fact, many conservatives, including Trump judicial picks ( U. S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, U. S. District Judge Clifton Corker, and Chief U. S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. ), have written that modern-day D-1 college athletes function as a labor market and have been economically mistreated by NCAA rules. But the loss of Abruzzo creates confusion.
Next, the coalition and participants are unaware that the company’s five-person board is in flow and may be less favorable to Dartmouth athletes.
Earlier this month, the Senate voted 50-49 against holding a assurance voting on the election of NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran, whose name ended Dec. 16. The Senate’s walk ended the opportunity for McFerran, a Democratic-board part, to remain for another term. Earlier this year, McFerran, along with David Prouty ( Democrat ) and Gwynne Wilcox ( Democrat ), voted to deny Dartmouth’s petition to stay the union election, with Marvin Kaplan ( Republican ) siding for the college. McFerran was thought to be favoring the athletes ‘ efforts.
Trump is expected to nominate for those vacancies early in his term as well as designate a new chair ( presumably Kaplan ), and there are currently two open positions. Assuming Trump’s contenders are confirmed—a process that may take months or months—the Republicans may secure a 3-2 lot.
A Democratic majority does not always indicate that Dartmouth players did drop on the board. But, the risk of a lost is higher. A reduction, in turn, would hinder another college athletes from seeking work recognition and unionization.
The unfavorability of an appeal by the Dartmouth participants against a negative table selection is a risk in its own right. Unions are typically unable to request an administrative review of NLRB depiction decisions under federal law. In other words, the issue would probably stop if the panel determined that the coalition does not represent the people, especially if the legitimate issue of whether the gamers are employees within the meaning of the NLRA is raised.

However, an appeal to the legal issue of the NLRA’s app to players (either the First Circuit in Boston or the D.C. Circuit ) could still be attempted. In fact, Kaplan wrote that it would “allow the Board to decide” whether school athletes who do not get athletic scholarships” should be considered people under the]NLRA]. However, that process would have been less certain.
In August, the players filed a separate unfair labor practices charge against Dartmouth over the school’s refusal to bargain. The new general counsel could withdraw the ULP on the grounds that the union matter was made unimportant by an adverse agency decision on representation if the players continued their representation efforts but the board refrained from doing so. However, the NLRA and the Administrative Procedure Act allow agency actions on ULPs to be appealed in general. The players could have guessed that a court would decide to appeal the ULP even if the NLRB rejected the representation petition because of recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent that directed courts to defer to agencies. However, it would have been a high-stakes wager with varying legal viewpoints regarding whether it would work.
The union believes it is likely the NLRB will grant it by making the request to withdraw while Abruzzo is still in place. There is concern that the request would be denied if the union waited until after Jan. 20 so that the agency could reject the union and establish precedent.
While serving as a bargaining unit, the players ‘ health care benefits at Dartmouth have improved. On the grounds that they have been recognized as employees, they could still file a lawsuit for backpay and other compensation related to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the accompanying state laws. However, that would necessitate a new legal action and is unlikely to happen. Instead, they are anticipated to concentrate on creating the Ivy League Players ‘ Association as a tool for negotiating group licensing agreements on behalf of Ivy league athletes at a conference-level.

The NLRB regional director Laura Sacks ‘ decision in February 2024 that the Dartmouth players were employees within the meaning of the NLRA will remain citable authority for those who seek employment recognition is confirmed by Tuesday’s development, which does not alter the outcome of the accompanying union effort ending. Her choice is persuasive authority, which means that its justification can be followed even though it is not required to be followed.
Sacks fully endorsed the legal reasoning and arguments offered by the players ‘ attorney, Jake Krupski. She reasoned the players perform work in exchange for compensation ( including preferred admissions into an elite university, per diem, clothing, sneakers, etc. ) and the school has the authority to oversee that activity. The players then made history by casting their ballots to become the first unionized college athlete to ever win. Dartmouth made the claim, among other things, that athletics is a part of the educational program and that college athletes have not traditionally been viewed as employees. The players ‘ union had petitioned the board of the organization for review after the school refused to bargain with them.
In a statement shared with Sportico, Local 560 president Chris Peck confirmed the request to withdraw. By submitting the request at this time, he stated,” we want to maintain the precedent set by this exceptional group of young men on the men’s varsity basketball team.” Peck emphasized that the players “pushed the boundaries of collective bargaining and employment in college sports” and “made history” by becoming the first college athletes to hold a certified bargaining unit and being classified as employees after winning their union election 13-2.” He continued to support the union’s efforts to “double down on our support for an Ivy League Players Association, expand our group licensing program, and continue to look for legal and administrative avenues to preserve and expand the rights of college athletes,” and “double down on our support for an Ivy League Players Association, expand our group licensing program, and continue to seek out and pursue legal and administrative avenues.”

Peck criticized Dartmouth College for “refusing to bargain,” which he claimed violates” their own Code of Ethical Business Conduct.” He added that” collective bargaining is the only viable option to address issues like the transfer portal, eligibility rules, and NIL payments,” that the NCAA and Dartmouth still face a difficult battle for a special antitrust exemption from Congress.
Other legal actions may result in the recognition of college athletes as employees and possible unionization. Eleanor Laws, a judge for the NLRB’s Administrative Laws, will rule on whether USC football and men’s and women’s basketball are employees within the meaning of the NLRA of their respective schools, the Pac-12, and the NCAA. Although the same set of concerns detailed above could potentially lead to the withdrawal request for that matter, her decision could be appealed to the board and then the courts.
Additionally, a federal court in Pennsylvania is considering Johnson v. NCAA, in which college athletes assert that they are employees under the FLSA. The Third Circuit’s U.S. Court of Appeals issued a favorable opinion in the plaintiffs ‘ case in July. Johnson will be decided in the courts, not at the NLRB.
Additionally, it’s possible for a college or, more likely, a conference to renounce their NCAA membership agreement and designate college athletes as employees. Employability could be used to contract players stay at a school and avoid the transfer portal and give coaches the authority to impose discipline and control on them as needed. Of course, such a move could invite potential expulsion from, or litigation with, the NCAA.
College sports is arguably moving in a commercialization direction, regardless of whether or not they are classified as employees or form unions. More and more judges are expressing hostility toward regulations that limit athletes ‘ economic opportunities. This is apparent with the rise of NIL and NIL collectives, recent court decisions involving the transfer portal, NIL collectives and Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia’s eligibility, and the pending NCAA settlement in the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations that would allow colleges to directly pay players under a salary-cap like model.

Although the Dartmouth case will no longer require college athletes to work there, it will be cherished as a pivotal moment in how the issue is ultimately resolved.