## Facts

- A union petition sought to represent Columbia University student assistants who performed instructional services (e.g., teaching assistants, teaching fellows, preceptors, course assistants, readers, graders) and certain research assistants.
- Many Ph.D. candidates performed teaching as part of program requirements; some master’s and undergraduate students served in paid instructional roles.
- Some graduate students conducted research funded by the university or by external grants; Columbia treated grant funds as income and paid and directed student researchers.
- Columbia opposed the petition, asserting that student assistants were not “employees” under NLRA § 2(3), relying on prior Board precedent excluding graduate assistants whose work related to their studies.
- The NLRB Regional Director dismissed the petition as controlled by that precedent, even after an evidentiary hearing developing detailed findings on duties, compensation, and supervision.
- On review, the Board considered whether to change its approach to student assistants’ statutory status.

## Issues

1. Whether student assistants at a private university who perform paid instructional and research services are “employees” within NLRA § 2(3).
2. Whether the Board should overrule precedent that categorically treated graduate assistants as nonemployees based on a “primarily educational” relationship.

## Decision

- The Board reversed the Regional Director and held that student assistants working at private colleges and universities may be statutory employees covered by the NLRA.
- The Board overruled the prior categorical exclusion and rejected a “primarily educational” test not grounded in the statutory text.
- Applying common-law employee principles, the Board found that performing services for compensation under the university’s direction and control can establish employee status even when the relationship is also educational.
- The Board directed that the representation petition proceed toward an election in the petitioned-for unit.
- A dissent argued that collective bargaining risked intruding into core academic matters and favored retaining the earlier approach.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 2(3) is broadly framed; absent a statutory exclusion, individuals with a common-law employment relationship fall within the term “employee.”
- The existence of an educational relationship does not negate employee status where the individual performs compensated services subject to the putative employer’s control.
- The Board may not create categorical exclusions from NLRA coverage based on policy concerns that conflict with the statute’s text and common-law employee analysis.
- Predicted effects on academic freedom and university governance, without persuasive evidentiary support, do not justify denying statutory coverage to otherwise-qualifying employees.

## Conclusion

The NLRB held that paid student assistants at private universities who perform teaching or research services under university control can be NLRA employees, overruled the prior categorical exclusion of graduate assistants, and allowed Columbia’s student-assistant representation petition to proceed to an election.


Trs. of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 364 N.L.R.B. No. 90 (2016)