The Service Employees International Union, Local 560, which represents another Dartmouth students who are unionized workers of the school, is the men’s hockey players ‘ coalition, and Dartmouth College announced on Monday that it would not agree to a deal.
The college says it wo n’t bargain if the National Labor Relations Board “refuses to overturn” last month’s order by NLRB regional director Laura Sacks to order a union vote and to recognize the players as employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. The 15 people voted 13- 2 to organize, and last week the NLRB certified the SEIU Local 560 as the athletes ‘ union.
The gamers request Dartmouth agreement over wages, hours, coverage, health care, disciplinary procedures, assistance services and other necessary subjects of work. In a collective bargaining agreement, the players may get paid at least the school minimum wage for students,$ 16.25/hour, and had probably receive funding to pay for out- of- pocket healthcare costs.

Given that the company’s board will likely not consider Dartmouth’s appeal for several months, the college’s pledge to fail to bargain will probably soon give grounds for an unfair labor practice charge. The NLRB may cost the coalition with refusing to bargain. The NLRB would then instruct Dartmouth to bargain—Dartmouth’s statement is an admission it wo n’t bargain. The organization may ask for a court order to carry out that education.
Dartmouth may think it would fare better if a federal court decided to choose whether it has bargain than to wait for the board of the agency, which had already rejected the school’s motion to remain the vote, to decide whether the players are employees and eligible to form a union. A federal court might reason Dartmouth does n’t have to bargain if the players are n’t, in that court’s view, employees within the meaning of the NLRA.
However, the range of the judge’s review may destroy Dartmouth’s plan. Technically speaking, the judge would be determining whether Dartmouth had contract rather than whether the participants are employees. In that context, the board of the agency does decide whether or not the work issue should be primary decided by the court.
However, the players may get their own judicial evaluation. They were hired by Dartmouth in February (unionization is a different action ) according to the local director’s purchase.
The people had file legal action against the school under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which guarantees maximum compensation and extra pay. The players may argue that they are owed wages and again pay because the FLSA protects them, which is the same fundamental constitutional argument as Johnson v. NCAA.
If a worker’s compensation claim is denied, a person who has been injured at work may even file a lawsuit against Dartmouth. Employees ‘ comp offers another avenue of remedy for a person in the legal structure, similar to the FLSA.
It’s unlikely that a Dartmouth person will file a lawsuit over wages or worker’s compensation for the time being because it would harm halting the formation of a union. If a court determined that the person is not an employee and therefore no owed worker’s compensation, it may fail. However, those prosecution tactics are still useful for people in challenging their employers.

Expect a contentious legal battle between the Ivy League and its baseball players as the two sides fight labour rules in a dispute that could ultimately alter the relation between Division I athletes and private colleges.