Union Decision

[nycat33]

According to the WSJ article below a union decision from the NLRB is expected in the next coming weeks. A perfect timed distraction to begin the season...either way I think it ends up in front of the Supreme Court.

Google the title to see the full article
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nlrb-to-rule-on-northwestern-football-players-bid-to-unionize-1438283370

 

[CaliforniaCat]

According to the WSJ article below a union decision from the NLRB is expected in the next coming weeks. A perfect timed distraction to begin the season...either way I think it ends up in front of the Supreme Court.

Google the title to see the full article
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nlrb-to-rule-on-northwestern-football-players-bid-to-unionize-1438283370

I couldn't find the article in today's print edition. Was this an on-line only story?

 

[mesacat]

wasn't that decision supposedly to be rendered sometime last fall? Anyone know why the tears delay?

 

[NJCat83588]

wasn't that decision supposedly to be rendered sometime last fall? Anyone know why the tears delay?

Your government in action.

 

[WestCoastWildcat]

wasn't that decision supposedly to be rendered sometime last fall? Anyone know why the tears delay?

Your government in action.

Your government in action.

wasn't that decision supposedly to be rendered sometime last fall? Anyone know why the tears delay?

Mesa- the article mentions a release of opinions because a board member is leaving. The article mentions it is common for the board to have a bunch of decisions released after a board member leaves. Don't know why that is. Morty is quoted as saying NU will appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. Speculation is the board will uphold the previous decision and allow NU to form a union. Just wonder if there are members on the current squad who really want to do that. "May you live in interesting times."

 

[nycat33]

I couldn't find the article in today's print edition. Was this an on-line only story?

CCat should be in tomorrow's (7/31) print edition

 

[NJCat83588]

Mesa- the article mentions a release of opinions because a board member is leaving. The article mentions it is common for the board to have a bunch of decisions released after a board member leaves. Don't know why that is. Morty is quoted as saying NU will appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. Speculation is the board will uphold the previous decision and allow NU to form a union. Just wonder if there are members on the current squad who really want to do that. "May you live in interesting times."

A vote was already taken. The results will be announced when the NLRB appeal is complete. My guess is that the union was voted down. If so, is the process complete?

 

[PaCat]

Yes, if the Board upholds the Director's Decision, the Regional Office will open the ballot box and count the ballots. If the players voted against representation there will be nothing to appeal and the case will be over.

 

[Styre]

Yes, if the Board upholds the Director's Decision, the Regional Office will open the ballot box and count the ballots. If the players voted against representation there will be nothing to appeal and the case will be over.

Well, no, because a decision to uphold will still allow the players to unionize even if last year's team didn't want to. The current roster could hold another vote to form a union if they wanted. So Northwestern will appeal no matter what the ballot box shows if the decision is upheld.

 

[KramerCat91]

Well, no, because a decision to uphold will still allow the players to unionize even if last year's team didn't want to. The current roster could hold another vote to form a union if they wanted. So Northwestern will appeal no matter what the ballot box shows if the decision is upheld.

I'm with PA Cat, if the players voted against unionization then the case is moot.

 

[KramerCat91]

wasn't that decision supposedly to be rendered sometime last fall? Anyone know why the tears delay?

The Supreme Court overturned many decisions of the NLRB because the NLRB wasn't properly constituted. The properly constituted NLRB then had to redecide those overturned decisions.

 

[MRCat95]

Well, no, because a decision to uphold will still allow the players to unionize even if last year's team didn't want to. The current roster could hold another vote to form a union if they wanted. So Northwestern will appeal no matter what the ballot box shows if the decision is upheld.

In the meantime, would Duke, Stanford, Miami, Notre Dame and other private school football and basketball players decide to give unionization a try based on the precedent? At the very least it could cause some distractions for those schools in the near future because the Union forces will no doubt get in their ears if the NLRB decision is upheld.

I think the players at NU know better now and are done with the union distraction regardless of how the NLRB (or a future court decision) rules.

 

[PaCat]

There is no procedure under which the University could appeal the Board's decision if the players voted against representation.
If the players voted in favor of representation the procedure by which the University gets to appeal is by refusing to bargain with the Union. At that point the General Counsel of the Board would issue a Complaint against the University charging it with committing an unfair labor practice. The Board's General Counsel would then file a motion for of a summary judgment which would result in the Board finding that the University committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain. That finding can be appealed to a federal court of appeals and ultimately to the Supreme Court. The University would get a chance to argue to a federal court of appeals and perhaps to the Supreme Court that it did not commit an unfair labor practice because the Board misapplied the law in certifying the Union.
Without a finding of an unfair labor practice by the Board there is no court review of the Board's certification of the Union. So although there might be a reason why the University would like to appeal the Union's certification if the Union loses the election, it's not going to happen.

 

[hdhntr1]

In the meantime, would Duke, Stanford, Miami, Notre Dame and other private school football and basketball players decide to give unionization a try based on the precedent? At the very least it could cause some distractions for those schools in the near future because the Union forces will no doubt get in their ears if the NLRB decision is upheld.

I think the players at NU know better now and are done with the union distraction regardless of how the NLRB (or a future court decision) rules.

Let's hope so. I have to feel that that was part of our lack of focus at the beginning of last year.

 

[Styre]

There is no procedure under which the University could appeal the Board's decision if the players voted against representation.

Fair enough. It's true, though, that the current players could vote separately to organize if the decision was upheld and the previous vote was against it, correct? And other private schools' teams could do the same?

 

[PaCat]

Fair enough. It's true, though, that the current players could vote separately to organize if the decision was upheld and the previous vote was against it, correct? And other private schools' teams could do the same?

You are correct. The Union would only have to wait a year after the conduct of the prior election before petitioning for a new election. Obviously, a year has now gone by so if the players rejected the Union, the Union could file a new petition seeking an election among the current bargaining unit players. MRCat 95 is also correct that the Union at any time could seek to organize teams at other private schools.
Other schools would probably not agree to conduct an election based on the Northwestern decision and would go to a hearing contending that somehow the facts that established NU players to be employees do not exist at their programs. Faced with a new election petition even NU might force the matter to another hearing contending that the facts have changed since the first hearing. Nevertheless this time the process would be quite a bit faster. The Board doesn't have to grant Review of Regional Directors' Decisions. If the Board doesn't see any substantial reason why its decision in our case isn't controlling, it won't grant review of the Regional Director's Direction of Election in future cases and will simply summarily adopt the Director's Decisions in those cases directing an election.

I don't believe that the Union will necessarily file another petition at NU if it loses the election. First, it can't even file a petition unless it can demonstrate support from more than 30 percent of the bargaining unit. Second, Union's don't like to file petitions and lose elections. Campaigns are time consuming and expensive. They have a lot less money to spend on these campaigns than Employers. Most Union's won't file petitions unless they initially have the support of well over 30 percent of potential voters. I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the Union will file another petition unless they believe they have a realistic chance at winning the second time around.

 

[Turk]

You are correct. The Union would only have to wait a year after the conduct of the prior election before petitioning for a new election. Obviously, a year has now gone by so if the players rejected the Union, the Union could file a new petition seeking an election among the current bargaining unit players. MRCat 95 is also correct that the Union at any time could seek to organize teams at other private schools.
Other schools would probably not agree to conduct an election based on the Northwestern decision and would go to a hearing contending that somehow the facts that established NU players to be employees do not exist at their programs. Faced with a new election petition even NU might force the matter to another hearing contending that the facts have changed since the first hearing. Nevertheless this time the process would be quite a bit faster. The Board doesn't have to grant Review of Regional Directors' Decisions. If the Board doesn't see any substantial reason why its decision in our case isn't controlling, it won't grant review of the Regional Director's Direction of Election in future cases and will simply summarily adopt the Director's Decisions in those cases directing an election.

I don't believe that the Union will necessarily file another petition at NU if it loses the election. First, it can't even file a petition unless it can demonstrate support from more than 30 percent of the bargaining unit. Second, Union's don't like to file petitions and lose elections. Campaigns are time consuming and expensive. They have a lot less money to spend on these campaigns than Employers. Most Union's won't file petitions unless they initially have the support of well over 30 percent of potential voters. I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the Union will file another petition unless they believe they have a realistic chance at winning the second time around.

I thought that the one year bar started after any determination? My understanding is that there hasn't been any determination. Thus, in this case, if a union chooses and has 30% support, isn't it prohibited from filing until one year after the determination of the final tally?

 

[NJCat83588]

You are correct. The Union would only have to wait a year after the conduct of the prior election before petitioning for a new election. Obviously, a year has now gone by so if the players rejected the Union, the Union could file a new petition seeking an election among the current bargaining unit players. MRCat 95 is also correct that the Union at any time could seek to organize teams at other private schools.
Other schools would probably not agree to conduct an election based on the Northwestern decision and would go to a hearing contending that somehow the facts that established NU players to be employees do not exist at their programs. Faced with a new election petition even NU might force the matter to another hearing contending that the facts have changed since the first hearing. Nevertheless this time the process would be quite a bit faster. The Board doesn't have to grant Review of Regional Directors' Decisions. If the Board doesn't see any substantial reason why its decision in our case isn't controlling, it won't grant review of the Regional Director's Direction of Election in future cases and will simply summarily adopt the Director's Decisions in those cases directing an election.

I don't believe that the Union will necessarily file another petition at NU if it loses the election. First, it can't even file a petition unless it can demonstrate support from more than 30 percent of the bargaining unit. Second, Union's don't like to file petitions and lose elections. Campaigns are time consuming and expensive. They have a lot less money to spend on these campaigns than Employers. Most Union's won't file petitions unless they initially have the support of well over 30 percent of potential voters. I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the Union will file another petition unless they believe they have a realistic chance at winning the second time around.

In the WSJ print edition story today, Ramogi Huma said the same thing: that the players could hold another vote this year, as could any other Division I private college [emphasis added]. He said if they lose the NLRB decision, they will attempt to unionize another school. "This is a big domino to fall one way or the other".

 

[Turk]

In the WSJ print edition story today, Ramogi Huma said the same thing: that the players could hold another vote this year, as could any other Division I private college [emphasis added]. He said if they lose the NLRB decision, they will attempt to unionize another school. "This is a big domino to fall one way or the other".

I don't think they can hold another vote this year at NU unless the NLRA is different than the RLA as far as the one year bar. The bar, I thought was set at the determination of dismissal?

edit; Clarification Where no union was certified in an election, the one-year prohibition on a new election begins to run on the dates of the balloting, regardless of any post election challenges or objections. Bendix Corp., 179 N.L.R.B. 140 (1969).

So yes, in theory, players could have a vote immediately upon dismissal. Assuming a union wanted to do another vote, in theory, the union could have already redid a 30% signup in anticipation.

 

[PaCat]

I thought that the one year bar started after any determination? My understanding is that there hasn't been any determination. Thus, in this case, if a union chooses and has 30% support, isn't it prohibited from filing until one year after the determination of the final tally?

Turk, it depends on the outcome. If the union wins, they will get a year from their certification (following the Board's decision) in which no petitions can be filed either seeking to de-certify them or to replace them with another union. In other words they get a year for good faith bargaining before their representative status can be challenged in a new election. (There is also something known as contract bar to new petition, but no need to go into that now) On the other hand, if they lose and there is no certification of representative, the one year bar runs from the election date.
The Board doesn't typically grant review of Regional Director's Decisions and Directions of Election. So in your typical case, it doesn't take more than a year from the time an election is held until the Regional Office counts the ballots. Therefore, in most cases, a union that loses an election would not be able to immediately file a new petition.