In what could end a nine-year labor dispute, a federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the right of Lancaster Symphony musicians to unionize.

Union leaders believe the decision concludes the case but a symphony executive said that’s unclear.

In Tuesday’s decision, the District of Columbia Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals voted 3-0 to let stand a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board, which found the musicians are employees and therefore eligible to unionize.

The symphony contended the musicians are independent contractors, not employees, so the National Labor Relations Act’s provision that allows employees to unionize does not apply to them.

When the case began, it spotlighted long-simmering questions about how a premier arts organization here was treating of its musicians.

Nationally, the case drew attention, as the employee-vs.-contractor issue has been frequently raised during union-organizing disputes.

“It’s been a long time coming for us. We’re just thrilled that the finding was in our favor,” said Dale Keagy, president of Lancaster-based Local 294 of the American Federation of Musicians.

“Most importantly, we’re looking forward to working with the symphony, without any animus, and coming up with a positive solution that would benefit both our members and symphony,” Keagy added.

“A lot of people think it’s a financial thing, but it’s not,” said John Hess, Local 294 secretary/treasurer.

“It’s just a way to formalize the rules and protect the musicians, so there’s a consistency that they haven’t had,” said Hess.

Paige McFarling, symphony executive director, said the symphony board of directors will be “considering our options” at its regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday night.

“Our musicians are important to us,” she said. “We want to make sure we’re doing the right thing for the musicians and the organization together.”

Judge David S. Tatel, writing a 15-page opinion for the decision, noted that both sides in the dispute had strong arguments.

“Because the circumstances of this case thus present a choice between ‘two fairly conflicting views,’ we must defer to the Board’s conclusion ...,” said Judge David S. Tatel.

Pointing to employee status, the judge said, the symphony “regulates virtually all aspects of the musicians’ performance,” down to the way they sit when playing and how they stand to acknowledge applause.

The symphony “enforces these rules” by issuing reprimands to musicians who fail to follow them.

“Even more significant, the (symphony’s) conductor exercises virtually dictatorial authority over the manner in which the musicians play,” Tatel said.

The symphony countered that its musicians “actually exercise a great deal of control over their performances,” saying they practice on their own, get instructions from the principal musician in their section.

Sign up for our newsletter Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup. Error! There was an error processing your request.

But Tatel observed that the conductor controls how the music is performed; principal musicians in a section give direction only at the behest of the conductor.

Another key issue was how the musicians got paid, the judge indicated.

They’re paid per job — a concert or rehearsal, which points to contractors. But they get extra pay for every 15 minutes a concert or rehearsal exceeds 2.5 hours, which tilts the balance to employees, said Tatel.

As the judge measured the symphony’s treatment of the musicians against a 10-point test used to determine the status of workers in other cases, he noted that several favor contractor status.

Their work “clearly requires a high degree of skill,” wrote Tatel. The symphony engages musicians for a short period of time — a year’s agreement for 140 to 150 hours of work at most.

The agreement also states that the musicians are independent contractors; the symphony does not withhold taxes from their pay.

“Summing up, then, we believe the relevant factors point in different directions,” Tatel concluded.

The labor fight at the symphony dates to 2007, when Local 294 began trying to organize the musicians, saying they’re employees.

The musicians wanted a labor contract because it would spell out procedures for auditioning, hiring, firing, handling grievances, selecting substitutes and other issues that they alleged are being handled “haphazardly,” depending on “how much you kowtow to certain people.”

Symphony management won the first round when the Philadelphia regional director of the NLRB ruled in its favor in 2007, finding that the musicians were contractors.

Local 294 appealed to the NLRB in Washington, which found 2-1 for the union in 2011, reversing the regional ruling.

That led to a vote in 2012 by symphony musicians on whether they wanted to organize by joining Local 294. They did, by a 50-34 vote.

But when the symphony balked at negotiating a labor contract with Local 294 that would cover the 127 musicians, the union filed an unfair labor charge against the symphony.

The NLRB found against the symphony, which appealed the matter to a federal appeals court, the District of Columbia Circuit.

In 2013, though, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case involving Pepsi bottler Noel Canning, decided that one of the NLRB board members had been improperly appointed.

Because the board member also had voted in the NLRB’s 2011 decision against the symphony, the Supreme Court ruling effectively invalidated that 2011 ruling.

So the case got heard by the reconfigured NLRB. The board again found for the union, by a 3-0 vote, in 2014.

Then the symphony returned to the District of Columbia Circuit. Oral arguments were held in January, leading to Tuesday’s decision.