- 20 -
because of the lack of control exercised by the university over the students' work. Leland
Stanford. 214 NLRB at 623. The Board concluded, "we are persuaded that the relationship of the
R.A.'s and Stanford is not grounded on the performance of a given task where both the task and
the time of its performance is controlled by an employer. Rather it is a situation of students
within certain academic guidelines having chosen particular projects on which to spend the time
necessary, as determined by the project's needs." Id., 214 NLRB at 623.
By contrast, the facts in the instant case are radically different than those in Leland
Sanford, demanding the opposite finding. At WBAI, just as with paid staff, the tasks that the
unpaid staff perform and the time of performance are governed by the Employer-Petitioner. For
example, the program director determines whether a specific radio program will be developed and,
once developed, if it will be preempted by another program. (T., p. 266 LL. 4-26. The program
director could complement, assist, change air time or cancel a program at a moments notice, and
has done so. (T., p. 266 L. 25 - p. 267 LL. 1-20) Virtually nothing regarding a program is done
without a discussion with the program director. (T., p. 270, LL. 22-25) The Employer-Petitioner
dictates the style of the program, who should be interviewed, and which time might be best to
interview a specific quest. (T., p. 191 LL. 18-25) In contrast to the students at Stanford
University, here it is the Employer-Petitioner and not the employees who determine what work
will be done.
The Board in Cedars-Sinai, using similar reasoning to that in the Leland Stanford
decision, held that hospital interns are students, not employees under the Act. Cedar-Sinai
Medical Center, 223 NLRB at 254. The Board, in great length, examined the traditional medical
education process from medical school, through internship and residency, including the
requirement that a
20
Previous Page ---------- Next Page
Up to the briefs page.