North American Soccer League v. N.L.R.B.
| Citation | 613 F.2d 1379 |
| Decision Date | 21 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-2069,79-2069 |
| Parties | 103 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2976, 88 Lab.Cas. P 11,975 The NORTH AMERICAN SOCCER LEAGUE, etc., et al., Petitioners Cross-Respondents, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Cross-Petitioner. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Danzansky, Dickey, Tydings, Quint & Gordon, Robert F. Rolnick, Edward R. Levin, Washington, D. C., Garon, Brener & McNeely, Herbert J. Garon, New Orleans, La., for petitioners cross-respondents.
Elliott Moore and John D. Burgoyne, Deputy Associates, Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for NLRB.
Ed Garvey, Washington, D. C., Jerry L. Gardner, Jr., New Orleans, La., for North American Soccer League Players Assn.
Petition for Review and Cross Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Before MORGAN, RONEY and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
The correct collective bargaining unit for the players in the North American Soccer League is at issue in this case. Contrary to our first impression, which was fostered by the knowledge that teams in the League compete against each other on the playing fields and for the hire of the best players, our review of the record reveals sufficient evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's determination that the League and its member clubs are joint employers, and that a collective bargaining unit comprised of all NASL players on clubs based in the United States is appropriate. Finding petitioners' due process challenge to be without merit, we deny the petition for review and enforce the collective bargaining order on the cross-application of the Board.
The North American Soccer League is a non-profit association comprised of twenty-four member clubs. 1 The North American Soccer League Players Association, a labor organization, petitioned the NRLB for a Players in the unit voted in favor of representation by the Association. 3 After the League and its clubs refused to bargain, the Board found them in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 158(a)(1) and (5), and ordered collective bargaining. 4 The League and its member clubs petitioned this Court for review. The Board's cross-application seeks enforcement of that order.
representation election among all NASL players. The Board found the League and its clubs to be joint employers and directed an election within a unit comprised of all the soccer players of United States clubs in the League. Excluded from the unit were players for the clubs based in Canada, 2 because the Board concluded its jurisdiction did not extend to those clubs as employers.
The settled law is not challenged on this petition for review. Where an employer has assumed sufficient control over the working conditions of the employees of its franchisees or member-employers, the Board may require the employers to bargain jointly. 5 The Board is also empowered to decide in each case whether the employee unit requested is an appropriate unit for bargaining. 6 The Board's decision will not be set aside unless the unit is clearly inappropriate. 7 Thus the issues in this case are whether there is a joint employer relationship among the League and its member clubs, and if so, whether the designated bargaining unit of players is appropriate.
Whether there is a joint employer relationship is "essentially a factual issue," 8 and the Board's finding must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 9
The existence of a joint employer relationship depends on the control which one employer exercises, or potentially exercises, over the labor relations policy of the other. 10 In this case, the record supports the Board's finding that the League exercises a significant degree of control over essential aspects of the clubs' labor relations, including but not limited to the selection, retention, and termination of the players, the terms of individual player contracts, dispute resolution and player discipline. Furthermore, each club granted the NASL authority over not only its own labor relations but also, on its behalf, authority over the labor relations of the other member clubs. The evidence is set forth in detail in the Board's decision and need be only briefly recounted here. North American Soccer League, 236 N.L.R.B. (No. 181).
The League's purpose is to promote the game of soccer through its supervision of competition among member clubs. Club activities are governed by the League constitution, and the regulations promulgated thereunder by a majority vote of the clubs. The commissioner, selected and compensated by the clubs, is the League's chief executive officer. A board of directors composed of one representative of each club assists him in managing the League.
The League's control over the clubs' labor relations begins with restrictions on the means by which players are acquired. An annual college draft is conducted by the commissioner pursuant to the regulations, and each club obtains exclusive negotiating rights to the players it selects. On the other hand, as the Board recognized, the League exercises less control over the acquisition of "free agent" players and players "on loan" from soccer clubs abroad.
The regulations govern interclub player trades and empower the commissioner to void trades not deemed to be in the best interest of the League. Termination of player contracts is conducted through a waiver system in accordance with procedures specified in the regulations.
The League also exercises considerable control over the contractual relationships between the clubs and their players. Before being permitted to participate in a North American Soccer League game, each player must sign a standard player contract adopted by the League. The contract governs the player's relationship with his club, requiring his compliance with club rules and the League constitution and regulations. Compensation is negotiated between the player and his club, and special provisions may be added to the contract. Significantly, however, the club must seek the permission of the commissioner before signing a contract which alters any terms of the standard contract.
Every player contract must be submitted to the commissioner, who is empowered to disapprove a contract deemed not in the best interest of the League. The commissioner's disapproval invalidates the contract. Disputes between a club and a player must be submitted to the commissioner for final and binding arbitration.
Control over player discipline is divided between the League and the clubs. The clubs enforce compliance with club rules relating to practices and also determine when a player will participate in a game. The League, through the commissioner, has broad power to discipline players for misconduct either on or off the playing field. Sanctions range from fines to suspension to termination of the player's contract.
Although we recognize that minor differences in the underlying facts might justify different findings on the joint employer Having argued against inclusion of the Canadian clubs in the NLRB proceeding, petitioners contend on appeal that their exclusion renders the Board's joint employer finding, encompassing 21 clubs, inconsistent with the existence of a 24-club League. The jurisdictional determination is not before us on appeal, however, and the Board's decision not to exercise jurisdiction over the Canadian clubs does not undermine the evidentiary base of its joint employer finding.
issue, 11 the record in this case supports the Board's factual finding of a joint employer relationship among the League and its constituent clubs.
Even assuming the League and the clubs are joint employers, they contend that Greenhoot, Inc., 205 N.L.R.B. 250 (1973), requires a finding of a separate joint employer relationship between the League and each of its clubs, and does not permit all the clubs to be lumped together with the League as joint employers. In Greenhoot, a building management company was found to be a joint employer separately with each building owner as to maintenance employees in the buildings covered by its contracts. The present case is clearly distinguishable, because here each soccer club exercises through its proportionate role in League management some control over the labor relations of other clubs. In Greenhoot, building owners did not exercise any control through the management company over the activities of other owners.
The joint employer relationship among the League and its member clubs having been established, the next issue is whether the leaguewide unit of players designated by the Board is appropriate. Here the Board's responsibility and the standard of review in this Court are important.
The Board is not required to choose The most appropriate bargaining unit, only to select a unit appropriate under the circumstances. 12 The determination will not be set aside "unless the Board's discretion has been exercised 'in an arbitrary or capricious manner.' " 13
Notwithstanding the substantial financial autonomy of the clubs, the Board found they form, through the League, an integrated group with common labor problems and a high degree of centralized control over labor relations. In these circumstances the Board's designation of a leaguewide bargaining unit as appropriate is reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious.
In making its decision, the Board expressly incorporated the reasons underlying its finding of a joint employer relationship. The Board emphasized in particular both the individual clubs' decision to form a League for the purpose of jointly controlling many of their activities, and the commissioner's power to disapprove contracts and exercise control over disciplinary matters. Under our "exceedingly narrow" standard of review, no arguments presented by petiti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd.
...in the underlying facts might justify different findings on the joint-employer issue.” North Am. Soccer League v. NLRB (NASL), 613 F.2d 1379, 1382 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 899 (1980); see also Carrier Corp. v. NLRB, 768 F.2d 778, 781 fn. 1 (6th Cir. 1985) (distinguishing TLI a......
-
Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
...in the underlying facts might justify different findings on the joint-employer issue.” North American Soccer League v. N.L.R.B. (NASL), 613 F.2d 1379, 1382 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 899 (1980); see also Carrier Corp. v. NLRB, 768 F.2d 778, 781 fn. 1 (6th Cir. 1985)(distinguishi......
-
Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp.
...sports leagues were joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act, placing particular emphasis on N. Am. Soccer League v. N.L.R.B. , 613 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1980) (" NASL "). Id. at 20-21 (citing NASL , 613 F.2d at 1382-83 ; U.S. Football League Players Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Footb......
-
Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.
...leagues were joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act, placing particular emphasis on N. Am. Soccer League v. N.L.R.B., 613 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1980) (“NASL”). Id. at 20-21 (citing NASL, 613 F.2d at 1382-83; U.S. Football League Players Ass’n, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Football League, ......
-
Employment Relationship Defined
...that contractor and subcontractor were joint employers and that both violated the NLRA); North American Soccer League v. N.L.R.B. , 613 F.2d 1379, 1382 (5th Cir. 1980) (noting control emphasis and affirming Board finding of a joint employer relationship between soccer league and its constit......
-
Table of cases
...Nguyen Consulting & Servs. , 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12932, *6 (5th Cir. July 9, 2014), §9:1.D.4 North American Soccer League v. N.L.R.B. , 613 F.2d 1379, 1382 (5th Cir. 1980), §1:8.D.3 North Am. Refractory Co. v. Easter , 988 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999, pet. filed), §30:12.B.2 ......
-
Employment relationship defined
...that contractor and subcontractor were joint employers and that both violated the NLRA); North American Soccer League v. N.L.R.B. , 613 F.2d 1379, 1382 (5th Cir. 1980) (noting control emphasis and affirming Board finding of a joint employer relationship between soccer league and its constit......
-
Table of cases
...Nguyen Consulting & Servs. , 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12932, *6 (5th Cir. July 9, 2014), §9:1.D.4 North American Soccer League v. N.L.R.B. , 613 F.2d 1379, 1382 (5th Cir. 1980), §1:8.D.3 North Am. Refractory Co. v. Easter , 988 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999, pet. filed), §30:12.B.2 ......