## Facts

- Major League Rodeo, Inc. (MLR) was formed in 1977 as an association of professional rodeo teams.
- In MLR’s first full season (1978), the league included teams located in Colorado, Missouri, California, Utah, Texas, and Oklahoma.
- During the 1978 season, each team played at least 14 home matches and 14 away matches, requiring teams, contestants, and equipment to travel across state lines.
- For fiscal year 1978, MLR had gross revenues of at least $281,000.
- In fiscal year 1978, MLR’s teams spent more than $50,000 on goods and services from suppliers located outside California.
- The Major League Rodeo Players Association (Players Association) sought to bargain with MLR on behalf of rodeo contestants, including both (1) contestants currently under contract with MLR teams and (2) “free agents” whose MLR contracts had expired or been terminated.
- MLR refused to recognize the Players Association.
- In August 1978, the Players Association filed a representation petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking certification for a unit including current players and free agents.
- MLR opposed the petition, arguing (a) the NLRB lacked jurisdiction because professional rodeo did not sufficiently involve interstate commerce, and (b) even if statutory jurisdiction existed, the Board should decline to exercise jurisdiction because MLR did not meet a claimed $500,000 interstate-commerce level.
- MLR also argued free agents should not be included because they had no current employment relationship and no non-speculative expectation of future employment with MLR teams.
- A hearing officer concluded the NLRB had jurisdiction and would exercise it, but found the appropriate unit could not include free agents; MLR sought Board review.

## Issues

1. Whether MLR and its constituent member teams were employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce such that the NLRB had jurisdiction, and whether the NLRB should exercise jurisdiction despite MLR’s asserted failure to meet a $500,000 monetary level.
2. Whether an appropriate bargaining unit could include both current MLR contestants under contract and “free agents” whose MLR contracts had expired or terminated.

## Decision

- The NLRB held that MLR and its constituent members fell within the Act’s commerce jurisdiction based on the league’s multi-state operations, regular interstate travel for competitions, and out-of-state purchasing.
- The NLRB declined to treat a $500,000 figure as a bar to asserting jurisdiction in this context and chose to exercise jurisdiction over MLR.
- The NLRB approved a bargaining unit limited to contestants currently under contract with MLR teams.
- The NLRB excluded free agents from the unit because they lacked a present employment relationship with MLR teams and did not share a sufficient community of interest with current players for inclusion in the same unit.

## Legal Principles

- The NLRA’s commerce jurisdiction reaches professional sports leagues whose operations involve regular interstate travel, multi-state competition schedules, and substantial interstate inflow of goods or services.
- The NLRB’s monetary jurisdiction standards function as administrative guides; the Board may exercise jurisdiction where the record shows meaningful interstate operations and commerce effects, even if a party claims the enterprise falls below a particular dollar level.
- In a representation case, the Board determines an “appropriate” unit under Section 9(b) by examining whether employees share a community of interest tied to current terms and conditions of employment.
- Individuals with no current employment relationship—such as former employees or unattached “free agents”—generally are excluded from a bargaining unit when future employment is contingent and uncertain.
- A bargaining unit in a league setting may properly be defined on a league-wide basis for those currently employed (here, those under contract), while excluding persons outside the current employment relationship.

## Conclusion

The NLRB concluded that Major League Rodeo’s multi-state league structure, interstate travel for scheduled matches, and out-of-state purchasing brought it within the NLRA’s commerce reach and warranted the Board’s exercise of jurisdiction. However, the Board limited the bargaining unit to contestants currently under contract with MLR teams, excluding free agents because they lacked a present employment relationship and therefore did not share the required community of interest with current players.


Major League Rodeo, Inc. and Its Constituent Members and Major League Rodeo Players Association, 246 NLRB 743 (1979)