PIAA & Insurance

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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.

Only until some other condition of the arrangement is changed. In that case, the ruling may no longer hold. Some lawyer, looking to pad his/her income, would be sure to at least make that argument.

Originally Posted by LRZ

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.

Who else can they pass it on to? There isn't some magic money source. When people sue the government looking for a payday, all the citizens pay, not some nebulous body with a money printing machine.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Only until some other condition of the arrangement is changed. In that case, the ruling may no longer hold. Some lawyer, looking to pad his/her income, would be sure to at least make that argument.


Who else can they pass it on to? There isn't some magic money source. When people sue the government looking for a payday, all the citizens pay, not some nebulous body with a money printing machine.

Their membership. The member schools should be paying the cost of defending litigation or their insurance company.