National Football League Players Association v. National Labor Relations Board

In early 1971, at the impetus of National Football League (NFL) commissioner Pete Rozelle, the NFL’s competition committee (which consisted of the owners or representatives of four NFL teams) recommended a rule permitting Rozelle to fine players $200 if they left their bench during an on-field fight. The rule did not require individual notice or a hearing before Rozelle could impose a fine. In March 1971, the NFL’s owners approved the rule, after which Rozelle issued a press release announcing it. Rozelle proceeded to exercise this authority by fining more than 100 players for leaving their bench during on-field fights in three games. The NFL Players Association (union) (plaintiff) questioned the fines on the ground that, among other things, the rule violated the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union and the NFL because it was a change in employment practices that had not been negotiated in good faith. Rozelle responded that the NFL adopted the rule pursuant to a resolution by the owners. After the union asked the NFL Management Council (council) to negotiate with it regarding the rule, the council responded that Rozelle adopted the rule pursuant to his CBA powers, and thus the fines were not imposed by the owners. The union filed an unfair-labor charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (defendant), alleging that the NFL and the council (collectively, employers) improperly refused to bargain by unilaterally adopting the rule. The NLRB’s general counsel agreed with the union and filed a complaint against the employers. The employers countered, among other things, that there was no unfair labor practice because Rozelle, not the owners, established the rule and thus Rozelle, not the owners, issued the fines. An NLRB administrative-law judge ruled that the owners enacted the rule and that the fines were thus owner imposed. The employers appealed to the full NLRB, which found that (1) the union conceded Rozelle’s authority to fine players for misconduct without owner approval; (2) Rozelle issued the rule, and the owners did not meaningfully participate in its adoption; and (3) there was no legal difference between Rozelle issuing individual fines after notice and hearing and enacting a rule authorizing across-the-board fines for prohibited conduct. The union appealed.