Harvard To Alter Shuttle Schedule

Buildings and Grounds of officials have decided to revise the current shuttle bus schedule and lengthen drivers' work shifts by the end of the week. Thomas E. Curtis '81, a representative for drivers who are considering affiliating with the Teamsters Union, said yesterday.

Edward W. Powers, associate general counsel for employee relations, last night confirmed that B&G officials plan to change the shuttle schedule, but added that he was unaware of any proposed lengthening of drivers' work shifts.

When they asked the University to recognize their right to unionize last week, drivers also demanded changes in the current shuttle schedule, longer work shifts, and increased wages.

The shuttle drivers' demands did not affect the University's decision to revise the current schedule, which was implemented only three weeks ago, Powers said, adding, "The new runs just weren't functioning well."

On the Quarter Hour

Curtis said that Carl V. Swanson, superintendent of central services for B&G, decided yesterday to revise the schedule so that buses will run every 15 minutes, instead of the current rate of every 12 minutes.

Swanson was unavailable for comment last night.

Drivers have said, since they began protesting the new schedule three weeks ago, that the 12 minute intervals between runs made it difficult for passengers to know when to expect service.

If the University said that the schedule changes came as a result of drivers' efforts to unionize and were designed to remove the drivers' Incentive for unionization, the Teamsters could file an unfair labor practices petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Curtis said.

"These changes should not have any effect on our plans for forming a union." Curtis said, adding that a union could guarantee drivers a voice in the schedule-making process.

Curtis added, however, that drivers will now "feel like they've gotten something out of their attempts to unionize."

An overwhelming majority of shuttle drivers submitted union authorization cards to Teamsters Local 379 yesterday, Curtis said, adding that Teamsters of ficials are currently considering the drivers request for affiliation.

Teamsters representatives did not file a petition for the drivers' right to unionize with the NLRB yesterday and were unavailable for comment.

University officials have so far refused to comment on whether they will recognize the drivers' right to unionize. But several drivers said Monday that Harvard officials told them in a recent meeting that the University definitely would not comply with the request for recognition.

One reason the Teamsters and drivers have delayed the submission of the unionization petition to the NLRB is that the board's precedent generally does not recognize the right to unionize workers who are primarily students, Curtis said.

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