HANOVER, N.H. (AP) — Dartmouth College announced its decision on Monday to not recognize the union formed by its men’s basketball team, setting the stage for a potential federal court battle.
Dartmouth maintains that Ivy League athletes are students, not employees, and therefore should not be permitted to unionize. This declaration came in response to a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional director’s ruling last month that classified the basketball players as employees eligible for unionization.
The Dartmouth basketball team subsequently held a vote, in which they elected, by a margin of 13-2, to join the Service Employees International Union Local 560.
“We believe the regional director has made an extraordinary mistake in finding these students are employees and regard our athletes as students first, with athletics serving as an integral part of their education,” stated Dartmouth in its refusal to acknowledge the union.
The institution is now seeking a review by the full NLRB of the regional director’s decision. Dartmouth explains that its next step, in case the NLRB upholds the ruling, would be a calculated refusal to negotiate. This refusal is expected to trigger an unfair labor practice charge by SEIU Local 560, which Dartmouth would then appeal to obtain a federal court review.
___
For more on AP college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-basketball
FAQ Section
- Why is Dartmouth refusing to negotiate with its men’s basketball team’s union?
Dartmouth contends that student-athletes in the Ivy League are not employees and thus should not be able to unionize or engage in collective bargaining. - What was the result of the Dartmouth basketball team’s union vote?
The players voted 13-2 in favor of joining the Service Employees International Union Local 560. - What will happen if the NLRB upholds the regional director’s decision?
If the NLRB maintains the decision, Dartmouth plans to refuse to bargain, leading to an unfair labor practice charge that it would appeal in federal court. - Are there any precedents for this type of case?
This situation is unique within Dartmouth’s history of labor relations and might set a precedent for how student-athlete unionization efforts are addressed in the Ivy League and possibly in the broader landscape of collegiate athletics.
Conclusion
Dartmouth College’s refusal to engage in collective bargaining with its men’s basketball team’s union represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate about the status of student-athletes within the realm of labor law. Depending on how the NLRB and possibly the federal court rule, this case could have substantial implications for the future of student-athletes’ rights and the structure of college athletics. The conflict highlights the evolving nature of college sports and the need to reassess the relationship between higher educational institutions and the athletes who represent them on the field and the court.