![Drug manufacturing laboratory equipment](https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/media/images/nrf/thought-leadership/canada/publications/life-sciences-healthcare-lab-equipment.jpg?w=265&revision=355955d3-b814-40be-80c7-63b3ad62cb43&revision=5248910870347387904&hash=1F3BEDB56F2489EB29C4E2FCBDED3656)
Publication
Health Canada identifies lithium-ion batteries, infant bath seats, and water beads as hazards of concern
Health Canada has recently identified three new classes of products that pose a hazard of concern.
Publication | August 2015
On August 17, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) declined to assert jurisdiction to determine whether the Northwestern University (Northwestern) scholarship football players should be considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
In April, we reported that the Regional Director of Region 13 of the NLRB found that scholarship football players from Northwestern University (Northwestern) were “employees” under Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and he ordered an election so that eligible football players could vote on collective bargaining representation by the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA). Northwestern appealed, and just this week, the NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction.
At the regional level, CAPA argued that the scholarship football players “perform valuable services” for Northwestern, and Northwestern compensates the players by providing tuition, fees, room, board, books, and other miscellaneous benefits, valued at up to $76,000 per calendar year. The Regional Director agreed that this relationship, governed by an employment contract called a “tender,” demonstrates that the scholarship football players are statutory employees. Id. at 14.
In its decision, the NLRB declined to address the issue of the scholarship football players’ claimed “employee” status as asserted by CAPA. Instead, the NLRB relied on the principle that it may decline to exercise its jurisdiction when asserting jurisdiction would not effectuate the policies of the NLRA. Decision on Review and Order at 3. It decided that, “even if the scholarship players were statutory employees . . . , it would not effectuate the policies of the [NLRA] to assert jurisdiction.” Id. In declining to exercise its jurisdiction, the NLRB considered a number of factors:
The NLRB emphasized that it limited the holding “to the particular circumstances of this case.” Id. at 1. It explicitly left open future petitions, including a future petition from the Northwestern scholarship players if their circumstances change “such that the underpinnings of [the NLRB’s] conclusions regarding jurisdiction warrant reassessment” or “a petition for all [NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision] scholarship football players (or at least those at private colleges and universities).” Id. at 6.
The NLRB ducked a highly-watched, extremely controversial issue that had potential implications not just for college football but also for other programs at private educational institutions. We expect that we have not seen the last of the effort to unionize college athletes and that the NLRB’s decision will likely only cause future petitioners to revise their approach to seeking unionization. Stay tuned!
Publication
Health Canada has recently identified three new classes of products that pose a hazard of concern.
Publication
An employer’s ability to ask for a sick note when an employee is absent from work due to illness is becoming increasingly curtailed across Canada.
Publication
Since 2022, the Government of Canada has introduced three waves of amendments to the Competition Act (Act), making substantive changes to Canada’s competition laws, with the most recent amendments receiving royal assent on June 20, 2024.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023