PIAA & Insurance

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

While the OhioHSAA has gotten better, it can be a schmuck from time to time with regard to officials.

MTD, Sr.

Requiring football officials to take their books to the field to appease disgruntled coaches doesn't reflect well on them.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Requiring football officials to take their books to the field to appease disgruntled coaches doesn't reflect well on them.

Mark, Jr., and I have never taken our rules books to the court or baseball and softball diamonds, but we always have our rules books in the dressing room for basketball or our car for baseball and softball games. If the need to go to the rules book we can retire to the quiet of the dressing room or go to the car.

MTD, Sr.

[LRZ]

Below is the text of the email we received, addressing the unionization and insurance issues; that part of our yearly dues formerly for insurance will now be used by PIAA to recoup its legal expenses.

Dear Registered Sports' Official:

The purpose of this communication is to update you with information regarding your registration as a PIAA sports official. It is to this matter I will direct my comments.

As many of you may be aware for the past four years, PIAA has been opposing an adverse decision of the Regional National Labor Relations Board in Pittsburgh that classified lacrosse officials in PIAA Districts 7 & 8 as PIAA employees. The National Labor Relations Board on a 2-1 vote sustained the regional directors' decision. Two weeks ago, the District of Columbia Circuit, by a unanimous 3-0 vote, reversed this decision and held that PIAA lacrosse officials are independent contractors and are not employees of PIAA. If you would like to read this court decision, please click here. This decision confirmed our view and probably most of yours that you are independent entrepreneurial contractors who are free to solicit and reject assignments for games for various organizations based upon your own personal preferences.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals relied heavily upon the facts that PIAA-member schools, not PIAA, pay you during the regular season; that each season is a relatively short duration; and that PIAA does not exercise significant control over the calls made by officials during a game or contest. As the Court of Appeals noted: "Telling an official to call a game fairly is hardly akin to instructing a worker how to work."

There have been countless hours spent defending your right to maintain independent contractor status. As we move forward, it is necessary to make some adjustments to avoid an increase in your registration fees. One such action is the Board of Directors, at the recommendation of the Budget Committee, has decided to no longer provide insurance for registered officials since the actual number of claims have been minimal over the past decade, the high premium costs, and the Court's decision that providing insurance coverages may have made it more likely for you to be considered an employee. If you'd like to explore the possibility of continuing coverage, please contact the NFHS Officials Program for registration which may include certain insurances.

We would like to thank the thousands of registered sports officials that believe in the avocation of interscholastic sports officiating and your support of the mission of PIAA to provide healthy, safe and fair athletic competition for student-athletes. Your support of brother and sister sports officials as well as our member schools has not gone unnoticed.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. We're looking forward to seeing many of you at this year's 25th Annual Officials' Convention that will continue to highlight those of you who are so willing serve our student-athletes.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

... the Court's decision that providing insurance coverages may have made it more likely for you to be considered an employee.

Smart thinking on their part.

[LRZ]

The appellate court ruled that we are not employees, but independent contractors, thus PIAA won the case. PIAA then justified rescinding our insurance because, in part, it could be seen as proof we are employees--an issue PIAA had already prevailed on (and therefore can't be relitigated).

[Rich]

Originally Posted by LRZ

The appellate court ruled that we are not employees, but independent contractors, thus PIAA won the case. PIAA then justified rescinding our insurance because, in part, it could be seen as proof we are employees--an issue PIAA had already prevailed on.

This action is just a big middle finger from the PIAA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by Rich

This action is just a big middle finger from the PIAA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Yep. Teaching us not to mess with the powers that be.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LRZ

The appellate court ruled that we are not employees, but independent contractors, thus PIAA won the case. PIAA then justified rescinding our insurance because, in part, it could be seen as proof we are employees--an issue PIAA had already prevailed on.

Winning that case doesn't mean there can't be more. In today's sue-happy climate, it is sure to resurface.

They just want to avoid giving people a reason to try to stick to them again. It cost them enough. Do people thing their costs from the whole ordeal were going to just get covered with monopoly money?

I can't blame them for reducing their exposure to risk.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Winning that case doesn't mean there can't be more. In today's sue-happy climate, it is sure to resurface.

They just want to avoid giving people a reason to try to stick to them again. It cost them enough. Do people thing their costs from the whole ordeal were going to just get covered with monopoly money?

I can't blame them for reducing their exposure to risk.

Nope, can't be raised again, at least not in PA. The caption of the case is PIAA v. NLRB, denominating the parties. The ruling of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit* is binding on the NLRB. If another group of PA officials were to claim employee status and try to unionize, the claim would go to and through the NLRB, which would be bound by precedent.

PIAA is passing on the cost of litigation to all registered officials, not just those who sought to unionize, and, as far as I know, not to its member schools.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Requiring football officials to take their books to the field to appease disgruntled coaches doesn't reflect well on them.

This really gets overblown far more than it actually occurs or has practical impact in reality. By rule, a coach in every NFHS state is entitled to ask for a coach/referee conference. All this does is require the books to be there for a quick reference in the extremely unlikely event that it isn't clear, a small extension of the existing coach/referee conference. It almost never gets to that point - but the very few times it has, having the books there has proven invaluable.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by scrounge

This really gets overblown far more than it actually occurs or has practical impact in reality. By rule, a coach in every NFHS state is entitled to ask for a coach/referee conference. All this does is require the books to be there for a quick reference in the extremely unlikely event that it isn't clear, a small extension of the existing coach/referee conference. It almost never gets to that point - but the very few times it has, having the books there has proven invaluable.

Huh? What are you talking about?
Which sport does this reference apply to?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Huh? What are you talking about?
Which sport does this reference apply to?

MTD made a comment about Ohio's history of being anti-official. I responded that the requirement that football officials have in that state to take their books to the field with them (discussed in the football forum in the past) doesn't reflect well on Ohio. Scrounge responded to my comment.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

While the OhioHSAA has gotten better, it can be a schmuck from time to time with regard to officials.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by SC Official

Requiring football officials to take their books to the field to appease disgruntled coaches doesn't reflect well on them.

Originally Posted by scrounge

This really gets overblown far more than it actually occurs or has practical impact in reality. By rule, a coach in every NFHS state is entitled to ask for a coach/referee conference. All this does is require the books to be there for a quick reference in the extremely unlikely event that it isn't clear, a small extension of the existing coach/referee conference. It almost never gets to that point - but the very few times it has, having the books there has proven invaluable.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by scrounge

This really gets overblown far more than it actually occurs or has practical impact in reality. By rule, a coach in every NFHS state is entitled to ask for a coach/referee conference. All this does is require the books to be there for a quick reference in the extremely unlikely event that it isn't clear, a small extension of the existing coach/referee conference. It almost never gets to that point - but the very few times it has, having the books there has proven invaluable.

If the coach isn't convinced that a rule is being correctly applied, it should be his job to prove it.