## Facts

- The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) was the certified exclusive bargaining representative for NFL players.
- A collective bargaining agreement among the NFLPA, the clubs, and the Management Council (owners’ bargaining representative) was in effect and set to expire in 1974.
- In response to on-field violence, the NFL Commissioner raised the issue with the competition committee, which consisted of owners or their representatives.
- The competition committee recommended a disciplinary policy fining any player who left the bench during a fight.
- At an owners’ meeting, the Commissioner presented the proposal and the owners adopted a rule imposing a $200 fine for leaving the bench area while a fight was in progress.
- The rule provided for automatic fines and did not provide for individual notice or a hearing before fines were imposed.
- The Commissioner publicly announced the rule and later imposed fines on more than 100 players following multiple games.
- The NFLPA objected that the fine rule changed terms and conditions of employment and was adopted without required bargaining and contrary to the CBA.
- In communications with the union, the Commissioner and the Management Council took inconsistent positions regarding whether the rule was owner-adopted or an exercise of the Commissioner’s CBA authority.
- The NLRB General Counsel issued a complaint alleging the NFL clubs and the Management Council violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) by unilaterally establishing the fine rule without bargaining.
- An ALJ found the rule was owner-imposed and constituted an unlawful unilateral change; the NLRB reversed, attributing the rule to the Commissioner rather than the employers and dismissed the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that the $200 fine rule was not attributable to the NFL clubs and the Management Council because it was adopted and promulgated by the Commissioner.
2. Whether adoption of a league-wide automatic fine policy affecting player compensation and discipline is a mandatory subject of bargaining such that unilateral implementation may violate NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1).

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the NLRB’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the Board erred by treating the fine rule as the Commissioner’s independent action rather than employer action.
- The record showed owners, through their governance structure (including the competition committee and owners’ meeting), were responsible for adopting the rule.
- The court rejected the Board’s equivalence between individualized fines (with notice/hearing) and a new across-the-board automatic fine policy.
- The court concluded the Board’s attribution finding was not supported by substantial evidence and improperly insulated employer decision-making from bargaining obligations.

## Legal Principles

- Employers may not avoid NLRA bargaining duties by channeling decisions on mandatory subjects through a commissioner or similar official acting as their agent.
- A rule imposing automatic monetary fines and discipline on bargaining-unit employees implicates “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment” and is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
- An administrative finding that employer participation was not meaningful cannot stand when the record shows employer bodies recommended, approved, or adopted the challenged policy.

## Conclusion

The court held that the league-wide $200 bench-leaving fine rule was attributable to the NFL employers and concerned a mandatory bargaining subject, so the NLRB erred in dismissing the unilateral-change complaint; the matter was remanded for further proceedings under the proper attribution and bargaining analysis.


Nat'l Football League Players Ass'n v. NLRB, 503 F.2d 12 (8th Cir. 1974)