Collective Bargaining: The Northwestern University Dispute

Collective Bargaining and the Dispute between Northwestern University and its Football Players

Collective bargaining is the method of negotiation between unionized workers and a coalition of employers to regulate pay, working hours, pensions, and other facets of employee wages and rights. The settlements achieved by collective bargaining, known as collective bargaining agreements (CBA), are binding on all workers of the bargaining unit and the employer, and are significant because they allow employees the freedom to negotiate equal terms without fear of victimization. However, the first step in the process of collective bargaining is to belong to a registered labor union, which would spearhead the collective bargaining process (Colosi & Berkeley, 2006).

Unionization and Collective Bargaining Dispute

As evidenced by the unionization and collective bargaining dispute between Northwestern University and its football players, only employees have the right to unionize and seek collective bargaining. The underlying dispute in the Northwestern University case was to determine whether football players, or just “players” can rightly be regarded to be employees of the Northwestern University, since they spent considerable time in football related activities and received stipend and other benefits for their efforts.

Impact on Players and the University

The decision whether the players are (or are not) employees of the university would have tremendous impact on the relationship between the players and the university. If it was determined that the players were employees of the university, it would follow that they had the right to unionize, thus allowing them to organize under the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA). This labor organization would champion the rights of the players and seek to improve their terms and conditions of their employment through collective bargaining (Chasmar, 2014).

The improved terms would include health and safety issues including financial support and protection in events of long-term injuries. The collective bargaining power would in turn increase the university’s burden over the players, thus the Northwestern University is determined to prove that the players were not employees, but rather students who play for the school, and who should be protected and guided by students’ rather than employees’ rights, which would effectively deny them the right to join the CAPA labor union (Ellis, 2014).

Arguments of CAPA and Northwestern University

The petition to determine whether the players were or were not employees of the Northwestern University was filed by the CAPA after some players in the team reached out to Ramogi Huma, the president of CAPA, and gave pretty good reasons why the players should be regarded as employees (Strauss, 2015). The petitioner based their argument that the players were indeed employees on the NLRB v. Town & Country supreme court case that held that an employee is any individual that works for another in return for financial or other forms of compensation.

The CAPA argued that Northwestern University requires the players to perform services similar to the services required of an NFL employee, and they are under strict supervision and control of the coaches. The CAPA argued that the football services are performed for the university, thus there exists a master-servant relationship between the university and the players, and the services are provided in return for payment. The CAPA argued that none of the players receive credit for any of their football program activities, but rather receive in kind or in cash, stipend and other benefits that can be considered to be compensation for the services they provide, and which may be revoked upon withdrawal of services (Kohlman, Adam & Yokich, 2014).

The Northwestern University was bent on showing that the players were not employees thus also made compelling arguments. The university poised that it is first and foremost an academic institution, thus its football program is an avocation rather than a vocation. As such, the relation between the university and all student-athletes is primarily educational rather than economic. Accordingly, the university argued that the football related activities, including the practices and compensation take a back seat to student-athletes academic schedules (Northwestern University, 2014).

The university maintained that the grants and financial assistance are in no way a pay for the athletic services rendered by the students since they are never reduced or cancelled due to student’s athletic ability, contribution to the team or due to injuries that may prevent the athlete from participating. Further, the university attested that the scholarships are not compensation for purposes of withholdings or taxes, thus can never qualify as compensation, thus players cannot claim to be employees. Further, the university argued that unionizing student-athletes would create chaos owing to the variations of federal and state laws pertinent to collective bargaining that the players were seeking. Again, extending the collective bargaining rights to Northwestern Football players would have the ramifications of Title IX, and affect the decision of the university to offer athletic opportunities for student athletes. The university argued that CAPA objectives could not be achieved as they contrasted with NCAA regulations, therefore Northwestern University players could not unionize under CAPA and could not collectively bargain (Northwestern University, 2014).

Resolution by the National Labor Relations Board

The dispute was resolved by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the body which is constitutionally mandated to determine employees’ rights to unionize. Specifically, the case was heard by the regional Director of Region 13 of the NLRB, who determined that the scholarship football players of the Northwestern University were indeed employees of the University, and ordered that an election be conducted to determine whether eligible players could vote on whether or not they should form a union (Chasmar, 2014). However, this bid was later overturned by the NLRB, which decreed using the NCAA core principle that college athletes are primarily students, thus cannot be employees, and consequently could not unionize or seek collective bargaining (Strauss, 2015).

Discussion and Conclusion

In retrospection, it is evident that both parties to the dispute made plausible arguments to support their case, and neither did an illegal or unethical conduct. However, I believe that seeking to unionize and have collective bargaining power was not the best method to resolve the underlying issues. The best method that the players should have used to resolve their issues would have been to air their grievances to the Northwestern University via their coach and probably, the university would have responded positively.

As a scholar of labor relations, it seems that identifying the athletes as employees thus giving them the power to unionize would have led to opening a Pandora’s box where all athletes would seek to be unionized and with collective bargaining power. The bargaining power would empower athletes to champion their rights at the expense of the university, thus the university would have been forced to treat the athletes as employees rather than students first, which would affect the academic performances of these student-athletes. Therefore, the courts ruled as they did to avoid the would-be negative impacts of treating student-athletes as employees rather than students first, and the possible Title IX ramifications the alternative decision would cause.

References

Chasmar, J., (2014). Northwestern football players will give it the old college try — with a labor union. The Washington Times, Jan. 28, 2014. Accessed on 24, Nov. 2017 from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/28/northwestern-university-football-players-seek-labo/

Colosi, T. R. & Berkeley, A. E. (2006). Collective bargaining: How it works and why: a manual of theory and practice. Huntington, New York: Juris Publishing.

Ellis, Z., (2014).Northwestern football players seek to unionize; what does the development mean? Accessed on 24, Nov. 2017 from https://www.si.com/college-football/campus-union/2014/01/28/northwestern-football-kain-colter-labor-union

Kohlman, G. Adam, G & Yokich, A., (2014).Post-hearing brief of petitioner college athletes players association. The National Labor Relations Board Region 13

Northwestern University, (2014). Brief to the Regional Director on behalf of Northwestern University. The National Labor Relations Board Region 13

Strauss, B., (2015).N.L.R.B. Rejects Northwestern Football Players’ Union Bid. The New York Times. Accessed on 24, Nov. 2017 from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/sports/ncaafootball/nlrb-says-northwestern-football-players-cannot-unionize.html

Strauss, B., (2015) N.L.R.B. Rejects Northwestern Football Players’ Union Bid. The New York Times Aug. 17, 2015. Accessed on 24, Nov. 2017 from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/sports/ncaafootball/nlrb-says-northwestern-football-players-cannot-unionize.html