Dining Hall Employees Alter Demands

In the third round of contract negotiations between the University and the union representing Harvard's dining hall employees, the union's bargaining committee yesterday presented the administration with a set of demands significantly different from its original list.

Local 26, the union representing the dining hall workers, asked for a three-year contract with successive 10-, 9- and 8-per-cent increases retroactive to April 1. The union had originally sought a 20-per-cent across-the-board raise.

Local 26 also requested a $20 safety shoe allowance, a five-cent a meal increase in laundry allowance this year, and an additional five-cent a meal laundry increase next year.

The University offered the 10-9-8 plan to the union before negotiations began April 9, but the union membership rejected the proposal in March.

Edward W. Powers, associate general counsel for employee relations, will now take the union's altered demands back to the Corporation for consideration.

The Harvard University Employee Representatives Association, the Maintenance Trade Council and the Harvard Police Association all recently settled for the 10-9-8 proposal.

"I got a pretty positive feeling from the meeting. I think we might be able to settle next week," Fred Walden, vice president of Local 26, said yesterday. The two parties have another meeting slated for May 21.

If the union's negotiating committee finds the University's final offer acceptable, it then must bring the proposal back to the membership for ratification.

Although the dining hall employees rejected the 10-9-8 plan when first offered, union sources say chances for acceptance this time appear favorable.

The change in the union's position represents a departure from its original strategy. Local 26 officials had said they would stick to the initial list of demands. "It's extremely difficult to expect anything more than the other unions received from the University," Walden said.

Powers could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Acceptance of the 10-9-8 proposal would entail successive raises of 44, 43 and 42 cents an hour for full-time employees.

At the initial bargaining session April 9, Powers refused to forward a counterproposal to the union's original demands, labeling them "unrealistic." Union officials in turn termed Powers' attitude "hostile."

Negotiations did not resume until Thursday, and representatives of both sides characterized the last two meetings "constructive." The dining hall workers' present contract expires June 19.