Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Justin Starling's former career as an urban planner inform his counsel to real estate developers? Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

FCPA: 2016 Year in Review & 2017 Enforcement Predictions

A review of trends and developments in FCPA as well as a look ahead into what to expect for 2017. This report aims at providing corporate leaders and companies with the knowledge they need to comply with the FCPA and avoid litigation in 2017.

Read now

Labor Talk Blog: NLRB "Punts" - Declines To Assert Jurisdiction Over Northwestern Football Players

Publications

August 17, 2015

In a ruling on August 17, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided that it should not exercise jurisdiction over the unionization attempts by Northwestern football players. The NLRB "punted" the issue and declined to decide whether the football players were employees permitted to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act.

So, why did the NLRB decline jurisdiction? Because, it says, asserting jurisdiction only over the Northwestern football players would not "promote stability in labor relations." Here's some of the reasons why:

  • The NLRB noted that it has jurisdiction only over private universities, which make up only 17 of the approximately 125 universities in Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS).
  • The NLRB found that the history of oversight in bargaining in analogous professional sports has never involved recognition of a unit comprised of only one sports team;
    • Rather administrative oversight of bargaining has included the entire sports league;
    • Here, however, the NLRB is being asked to assert jurisdiction over only one team and the players of other competing teams would not be represented or are entirely outside the NLRB’s jurisdiction.
  • Since the Northwestern football program faces regulation not simply from the school but also from the Big Ten and the NCAA, and since Northwestern is the only private university in the Big Ten and only one of 17 private universities in the FBS of the NCAA Division I, exercising jurisdiction would not promote the stability of labor relations.

So, what does this mean for employers?

  • Candidly, not much.
  • Employers may take some comfort that the NLRB in this instance likely got it right.
  • The ruling may give some fodder to private employers battling "micro-units" as the decision does have some helpful language in that regard.
  • Look for continued effort by the union to push at the conference and NCAA level for more oversight on behalf of the players and their desire to be paid a stipend or for the use of their images, and to discuss other health and welfare issues.

For more labor and employment information, visit www.BassBerryLaborTalk.com


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.