Summary
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones drew a line in the sand this weekend by publicly pronouncing that he would bench any player who kneels during the national anthem, prompting a union in Texas to file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Jones’ edict illegally restricts players’ rights under federal labor law.
…
Stanford Law School professor William B. Gould, who chaired the NLRB for about four years beginning in mid-1994, said that “there is no standing requirement” and that any person can file a charge with the NLRB, such as the union in this case that doesn’t represent NFL players.
With that said, Gould said the case contains “many areas of uncharted territory,” including issues of free speech as well as the NLRB’s attitude toward the procedures the NFL has in place for resolving workplace grievances.
…
And Gould said it doesn’t appear that the players’ actions to this point meet the requirements for protected, concerted activity, but that they soon could.
“In order for [the players’ actions] to be protected and concerted, they must concern working conditions,” Gould said. “On its face, this doesn’t appear to be the case. Concern over racial injustice is beyond the control of the clubs or the commissioner.”
But Gould noted that if the players are “protesting the boycott by owners on hiring Kaepernick, then that would involve working conditions,” and therefore result in their actions being protected under the NLRA.
Read More