A 1977 NLRB holding which has not been overruled did not recognize a right of unionization for "students employed by their own educational institution in a capacity unrelated to their course of study."

"In such cases the board has historically excluded the students from (labor) units which include ponstudent employees and have not afforded them the privilege of being represented separately," the decision stated.

The NLRB ruling added that collective bargaining among students "may be said to represent the very antithesis of personal individualized education" and would not be in the public interest.

Curtis said the drivers' legal advisers are aware of the NLRB precedent, but added that a 1980 decision allowing Boston University students to unionize would help the drivers' efforts.

In the B.U. case, students worked for a parking garage which had been subcontracted by the university to another company, Curtis said.

"The only difference is that Harvard is so big that it does not need to hire another company to run the shuttle buses." Curtis said, adding that in effect the University subcontracts the shuttle service to B&G.

Powers said that if the drivers are planning to rely on the B.U. case, "they're whistling Dixie; it has nothing to do with this case."

The B.U. precedent does not apply here. Powers said, because the B.U. parking subsidiary hired not only students, but anyone else who sought employment.

The drivers said they originally planned to establish an independent union, but sought outside assistance from the Teamsters in order to avoid the costs of a lengthy legal dispute with the University.

In their statement last Sunday the drivers said the new schedule--which cut daytime service in order to improve safety with increased nightly runs--forces them to drive unsafely, to neglect "certain members of the Harvard community" and to work more days to earn the same pay