## Facts

- Northwestern University, a private university, operated an NCAA Division I FBS football program in the Big Ten.
- The College Athletes Players Association (CAPA) petitioned to represent Northwestern football players receiving grant-in-aid athletic scholarships; non-scholarship walk-ons were excluded.
- The NLRB Regional Director found the scholarship players were “employees” under NLRA § 2(3) and directed a representation election.
- An NLRB election was conducted; ballots were impounded pending Board review.
- Northwestern sought Board review of the employee-status determination.
- The Board granted review, received extensive amicus participation, and issued a unanimous decision dismissing the petition after declining to assert jurisdiction; the impounded ballots were not counted.

## Issues

1. Whether grant-in-aid scholarship football players at a private university are “employees” under NLRA § 2(3).
2. Whether, even assuming employee status, the Board should assert jurisdiction where most comparable FBS programs are public institutions outside NLRA coverage and athletic governance is shared with conferences and the NCAA.

## Decision

- The Board unanimously declined to assert jurisdiction and dismissed the representation petition.
- The Board assumed, without deciding, that the scholarship football players were “employees” under NLRA § 2(3).
- The Board concluded that asserting jurisdiction over a single private-university FBS team would not promote stability in labor relations.
- Because the petition was dismissed, the impounded election ballots were not counted and were to be destroyed.
- The decision was expressly limited to the petitioned-for unit in this case and did not decide whether jurisdiction might be asserted in other cases involving scholarship athletes.

## Legal Principles

- The Board may, in its discretion, decline to assert jurisdiction when doing so would not effectuate NLRA policies, including stability in labor relations.
- In assessing whether to assert jurisdiction, the Board may consider industry structure and the extent to which key participants are outside NLRA coverage.
- The Board may dispose of a representation case on jurisdictional grounds while assuming statutory “employee” status without issuing a merits determination on § 2(3).

## Conclusion

The Board dismissed CAPA’s petition by declining jurisdiction, reasoning that Board oversight of a single private FBS program—within a sport dominated by public universities beyond NLRA reach and governed through multi-entity controls—would not advance stable labor relations, while leaving the players’ employee status unresolved.


Northwestern Univ., 362 N.L.R.B. No. 167 (2015)