http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140212/BLOGS04/140219918/northwestern-university-college-players-union-state-cases-to-nlrb?r=7666I3085245D7RNorthwestern University, college players' union state cases to NLRBFebruary 12, 2014
The College Athletes Players Association and Northwestern University laid out their arguments today over whether the school's football players should be considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act.
In one of the first steps of what promises to set a precedent in college sports, attorneys for both sides testified in a preliminary hearing at the Chicago office of the National Labor Relations Board.
Witnesses and evidence will be presented for both sides at a second hearing on Feb. 18.
CAPA's CASE
"Under board law and Supreme Court precedent, an employee is defined as one who performs services for another, is under the control of another and receives compensation," said John Adam, who represents CAPA. "We believe under that test that college athletes (are) meeting those three factors."
Mr. Adam echoed the points that CAPA made last month when it announced its formation, focusing on the need for college athletes to have an officially recognized advocacy group with the NCAA when it comes to players' rights.
As evidence that they are primarily football players who also happen to be students, he pointed to the fact that players spend 40 hours or more a week in practice, team meetings and other sessions involved in a "seven-day operation."
"You can be both a student and employee," Mr. Adam said in his testimony. "In this case, there is no connection between playing football and their academic degrees. They are performing services totally unrelated to the degrees they are working for."
NU'S CASENorthwestern attorney Alex Barbour countered Mr. Adam's argument on multiple fronts.
"We believe (college athletes) are predominantly students, first and foremost," said Mr. Barbour, who cited a 2004 decision in a NLRB case regarding Brown University graduate students, which determined that those student-teachers did not have the right to unionize. "We believe that is the governing holding test that should be used" to determine players' status, he said.
Mr. Barbour also spotlighted a handful of other arguments against CAPA's assertion that NU football players are employees, namely that the group that is actually petitioning isn't a "community of interest."
While CAPA and former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter, who is the player face of the unionization effort, said last month that the majority of the current Northwestern team signed and filed union cards with the NLRB, Mr. Barbour said that the group of athletes was "an arbitrary grouping of only some of the individuals who participate and are members of the NU football team."
In addition to questioning the composition of the unit, which still remains an undisclosed list of NU players, he stressed that it would be unclear who in the group would be eligible to vote, given that some players — including Mr. Colter — have exhausted their NCAA eligibility.
The NU attorney also argued that, even if they were deemed employees, they would be classified as "temporary" workers because of the "duration and transitory nature of a college football player's playing time."
Mr. Adam dismissed the temporary employee argument, saying that playing football for four or five years is sufficient to deem the athletes full-time employees.
"They're not hired for (a few) months to perform a specific job," he said.
Mr. Adam said that Mr. Colter will appear as a "star witness" at the Feb. 18 hearing to testify on behalf of CAPA, though he did not say whether any current NU football players are scheduled to attend.
NLRB hearing officer Joyce Hofstra said the board will have to examine the makeup of the players group that signed the petition.
STATEMENT FROM NORTHWESTERNNorthwestern Vice President for University Relations Alan Cubbage issued a statement on behalf of the school after today's hearing, reiterating its stance that student-athletes are students first and athletes second.
"We believe that participation in athletic events is part of the overall educational experience for those students, not a separate activity," the statement said. "Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by the student-athletes."
The case is the latest development in the well-worn debate over fairness in the NCAA, and what has become a multibillion-dollar college football and basketball industry.
A determination could be made next week in Chicago, or the case could be sent along to the NLRB's Washington headquarters for a decision. The process likely still has a long road ahead, as any ruling would probably be appealed, potentially all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
