Battle Lines Drawn at Union

Events of the last two weeks likely have left a bitter taste in the mouth of Harvard's mealtime messiah, Michael P. Berry.

On April 2, Berry, the University's director of dining services, fired Darryl Hicks, a cook and labor union shop steward in the Harvard Union dining hall. In the letter informing Hicks of his termination, Berry--affectionately dubbed the mealtime messiah by many students--cited Hicks' "unacceptable performance and conduct as an employee" and "numerous prior warnings."

Indeed, Hicks had a long disciplinary history at Harvard Dining Services (HDS). During his more than five year tenure at the College's largest dining hall, the 32-year-old Army veteran had amassed a paper trail of warnings and suspensions.

Berry has refused to comment on the case, but Harvard officials have said the decision to fire Hicks was more than justified based on his record.

"If you've seen Darryl Hicks' record, why are you standing here?" Union Assistant Manager John P. Shaffer asked a Crimson reporter earlier this week. "He did it. We didn't do it."

That record, however, is precisely what Darryl Hicks had been fighting over with Harvard management for his entire career here--and it is that same record that Hicks has strongly contested in the past two weeks.

Hicks, who began working at Harvard in late 1987 and was elected shop steward in 1990, has been contesting disciplinary action taken against him by dining hall administrators dating back to early 1988, just a few short months after he was hired.

It started with one Harvard Union cook who charged racial discrimination and lost his job three months later. Now, others are coming forward with a catalog of complaints. Harvard Dining Services officials have denied allegations of harassment and intimidation. The battle lines are being drawn for a...

Those protests came to a head in December, 1992, when Hicks--who is Black--filed a set of state and federal complaint: charging that he had been racially harassed and discriminated against on the job. In March, he told The Crimson that dining hall managers were also trying to silence his vocal labor union activism.

In April, he was fired.

Now, Hicks is escalating the battle over his employment at the University.

During the last two weeks, he has charged top HDS administrators--from Shaffer, to Harvard Union dining hall Manager Katherine E. D'Andria, to Berry himself--with having less-than-spotless records of their own.

Theirs are records that, according to Hicks, indicate a pattern of discrimination, harassment, and the intimidation of employees at the Freshman Union.

And this week, Hicks received a pledge of support from fellow HDS shop stewards at the University, who are circulating a petition demanding his reinstatement. In addition, most workers interviewed in the last two weeks have backed the fired cook, and organized student support is growing.

"Management has a history of racial prejudice, intimidation and threats," said Co-chief Shop Steward Edward B. Childs, who is white. "We have a history of complaints against [D'Andria] from workers. The Freshman Union has been known for this for sometime since she started there and it's one of the factors that workers transfer out and don't transfer back in."

D'Andria and Shaffer strongly denied the allegations.

"They would naturally say that, don't you think?" D'Andria said of the shop stewards' charges.

But this week, another employee at the Union echoed Hicks' complaints.

"This is my personal feeling, that they don't care for Blacks," said the employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Other workers at the Union have been divided over whether the Union is fraught with racial tensions, with some saying that dining hall employees get along well with each other and with their bosses.

Still, many of the workers seconded Hicks' charges that they are harassed for calling in sick.

"They bother us when we call in sick," said one. "They give you a hard time."

"Morale sucks," said another.

HDS administrators denied the charges.

"We do not force them to come in when they're sick," D'Andria said. "We may say, 'What's the problem?' But that's all we ask them."

"If they say they're sick, we do not call them in," Berry said. "I'd like to have someone show me one instance."

According to one worker, however, talking to Berry is not a good idea, even when the director extends an invitation.

The worker, who said he went to see Berry about a problem he was having with D'Andria, received a written warning from the mealtime messiah the following day.

"In the future, the ONLY instance when you will involve the Director with unit issues is after thorough discussion(s) with your unit management team," Berry wrote. "I will NOT again agree to meet with you UNLESS the meeting is scheduled by Ms. D'Andria or another member of the Freshman Union management."

Berry has said in the past that he prides himself on his accessibility.

"I'm not an ogre at all," he said. "If there was something that was bothering [the dining hall workers], they would tell me. I really have a good rapport with them."

Most workers interviewed in the past two weeks by The Crimson were firm in their belief that Hicks should not have been fired.

"I know he does a good job, I support him," said one employee. "He's a very good shop steward."

"They don't like him because he's a fighter," said another.

And Hicks' backers are not limited to his fellow employees.

Members of the Harvard-Radcliffe Labor Alliance (HRLA), a student group, this week issued a list of demands to Diane Patrick, director of the University's Office of Human Resources, that included a call for Hicks to be reinstated and a request for a "full-scale" investigation into discrimination at Harvard dining halls.

HRLA will circulate a petition among students urging the administration to rehire Hicks. That effort may be co-sponsored by the Black Students Association, which will decide at a meeting tomorrow night whether to lend its support to the fired cook.

The flurry of activity surrounding the Hicks case has likely caught HDS administrators, including Berry, by surprise. The HDS director was out of the country this week and could not be reached for comment, according to his secretary.

Shaffer said the charges have disturbed him, adding, though, that he is confident Hicks does not have a case.

"It bothers us because we live here. We work with everyone 12 hours a day," Shaffer said. "[Hicks is] grabbing at straws and the only one he's got is his color."

Hicks, however, has had success with appealing the dining hall management's decisions in the past.

In July, 1990, the University's Office of Human Resources reversed a one-day suspension of Hicks handed down by Shaffer for failing to report an absence for illness and for his "poor performance and attitude."

Shaffer later testified before an arbitrator that he had been informed Hicks would be absent--though not by Hicks--and that Hicks had called him the day of the absence to confirm that he would be reporting for his next shift.

In September, 1992, the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents ordered Harvard to reimburse Hicks for back pay, medical costs and attorney's fees that the University had denied him after an on-the-job accident. Hicks missed work for nearly three months after the injury.

And in November, 1992, an arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association ruled against Harvard on a one-day suspension of Hicks meted out in August, 1990. Although the arbitrator called Hicks' work record "distressing," he also criticized Shaffer and Union Manager Katherine E. D'Andria for failing to discuss their concerns with Hicks before suspending him.

The arbitrator ruled that there was no "just cause" for the suspension, which had been issued for an "unsatisfactory attendance record" and "poor performance."

And despite his determination that there was "no 'hard' evidence" that Hicks had been suspended in retribution for his labor union activities or to avenge the July, 1990 suspension reversal, the arbitrator did note "a coincidence of dates" in the University's disciplinary actions.

According to Hicks, he now has the "hard evidence" the arbitrator failed to find.

In October, 1991, Berry refused a request by Hicks to transfer out of the Union to another dining hall. In his letter to Hicks at the time, the HDS director cited a policy of not transferring workers who are presently being disciplined.

Hicks objected, noting the case of another Union employee who just two months later was transferred despite being demoted and suspended for poor performance.

In that employee's demotion, suspension and transfer order, dining hall Manager D'Andria catalogued (RIGHT WORD?) a litany of the employee's alleged infractions, concluding, "This suspension is based on your overall performance...including but not limited to, failure to meet job standards...failure to follow established procedures and instructions, insubordination, and failure to work cooperatively with fellow employees and management."

To Hicks, it appeared that an employeebeing disciplined had been given a transfer, contrary to Berry's assertion.

Carolyn R. Young, associate director of Harvard's Office of Human Resources, sought to clarify the apparent discrepancy HDS policy in a letter to Domenic M. Bozzotto, president of Local 26 of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union, to which Hicks belongs.

"Other examples of transfers of employees being disciplined...were in fact disciplinary transfers, i.e. transfers arising out of the disciplinary process and not at the request of the affected employee," Young wrote. "As an aside, in the case of the transfer that appears to have precipitated the grievance, the employee granted the transfer was more senior to Mr. Hicks."

Young has not returned repeated phone calls to her office since last week.

Hicks said the case typifies the discrimination he faces. In addition, he said, the demoted employee--whom D'Andria had charged in her reprimand with not using "sound judgment"--had complained repeatedly about Hicks, resulting in many of the disciplinary actions against him.

In the long run, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may or may not find in Hicks' favor, and the fired cook may or may not be reinstated.

But already, Hicks' crusade for the return of his job seems to have assumed proportions far larger than just a dispute involving one man and his employer.

Harvard's mealtime messiah--and the managers who work for him--may be facing a serious uprising in their largest dining hall, one that threatens to spread and involve students and HDS employees across the campus.

Said HRLA member Logan S. McCarty '96 earlier this week, "The issue is a pattern of discrimination, of people being treated unfairly, of people being discriminated [against] wrongly."

"It's a scary place to work," said one Union employee. "I've heard workers [at other Harvard dining halls] say they would quit before they work in the Union."

'[Hicks is] grabbing at straws, and the only one he's got is his color.' John P. Shaffer, Union assistant manager

'This is my personal feeling, that they don't care for Blacks.' An employee at the Harvard Union, speaking on condition of anonymityPhotoEdward H. WuFormer Harvard Union cook and shop steward DARRYL HICKS.

It started with one Harvard Union cook who charged racial discrimination and lost his job three months later. Now, others are coming forward with a catalog of complaints. Harvard Dining Services officials have denied allegations of harassment and intimidation. The battle lines are being drawn for a...

Those protests came to a head in December, 1992, when Hicks--who is Black--filed a set of state and federal complaint: charging that he had been racially harassed and discriminated against on the job. In March, he told The Crimson that dining hall managers were also trying to silence his vocal labor union activism.

In April, he was fired.

Now, Hicks is escalating the battle over his employment at the University.

During the last two weeks, he has charged top HDS administrators--from Shaffer, to Harvard Union dining hall Manager Katherine E. D'Andria, to Berry himself--with having less-than-spotless records of their own.

Theirs are records that, according to Hicks, indicate a pattern of discrimination, harassment, and the intimidation of employees at the Freshman Union.

And this week, Hicks received a pledge of support from fellow HDS shop stewards at the University, who are circulating a petition demanding his reinstatement. In addition, most workers interviewed in the last two weeks have backed the fired cook, and organized student support is growing.

"Management has a history of racial prejudice, intimidation and threats," said Co-chief Shop Steward Edward B. Childs, who is white. "We have a history of complaints against [D'Andria] from workers. The Freshman Union has been known for this for sometime since she started there and it's one of the factors that workers transfer out and don't transfer back in."

D'Andria and Shaffer strongly denied the allegations.

"They would naturally say that, don't you think?" D'Andria said of the shop stewards' charges.

But this week, another employee at the Union echoed Hicks' complaints.

"This is my personal feeling, that they don't care for Blacks," said the employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Other workers at the Union have been divided over whether the Union is fraught with racial tensions, with some saying that dining hall employees get along well with each other and with their bosses.

Still, many of the workers seconded Hicks' charges that they are harassed for calling in sick.

"They bother us when we call in sick," said one. "They give you a hard time."

"Morale sucks," said another.

HDS administrators denied the charges.

"We do not force them to come in when they're sick," D'Andria said. "We may say, 'What's the problem?' But that's all we ask them."

"If they say they're sick, we do not call them in," Berry said. "I'd like to have someone show me one instance."

According to one worker, however, talking to Berry is not a good idea, even when the director extends an invitation.

The worker, who said he went to see Berry about a problem he was having with D'Andria, received a written warning from the mealtime messiah the following day.

"In the future, the ONLY instance when you will involve the Director with unit issues is after thorough discussion(s) with your unit management team," Berry wrote. "I will NOT again agree to meet with you UNLESS the meeting is scheduled by Ms. D'Andria or another member of the Freshman Union management."

Berry has said in the past that he prides himself on his accessibility.

"I'm not an ogre at all," he said. "If there was something that was bothering [the dining hall workers], they would tell me. I really have a good rapport with them."

Most workers interviewed in the past two weeks by The Crimson were firm in their belief that Hicks should not have been fired.

"I know he does a good job, I support him," said one employee. "He's a very good shop steward."

"They don't like him because he's a fighter," said another.

And Hicks' backers are not limited to his fellow employees.

Members of the Harvard-Radcliffe Labor Alliance (HRLA), a student group, this week issued a list of demands to Diane Patrick, director of the University's Office of Human Resources, that included a call for Hicks to be reinstated and a request for a "full-scale" investigation into discrimination at Harvard dining halls.

HRLA will circulate a petition among students urging the administration to rehire Hicks. That effort may be co-sponsored by the Black Students Association, which will decide at a meeting tomorrow night whether to lend its support to the fired cook.

The flurry of activity surrounding the Hicks case has likely caught HDS administrators, including Berry, by surprise. The HDS director was out of the country this week and could not be reached for comment, according to his secretary.

Shaffer said the charges have disturbed him, adding, though, that he is confident Hicks does not have a case.

"It bothers us because we live here. We work with everyone 12 hours a day," Shaffer said. "[Hicks is] grabbing at straws and the only one he's got is his color."

Hicks, however, has had success with appealing the dining hall management's decisions in the past.

In July, 1990, the University's Office of Human Resources reversed a one-day suspension of Hicks handed down by Shaffer for failing to report an absence for illness and for his "poor performance and attitude."

Shaffer later testified before an arbitrator that he had been informed Hicks would be absent--though not by Hicks--and that Hicks had called him the day of the absence to confirm that he would be reporting for his next shift.

In September, 1992, the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents ordered Harvard to reimburse Hicks for back pay, medical costs and attorney's fees that the University had denied him after an on-the-job accident. Hicks missed work for nearly three months after the injury.

And in November, 1992, an arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association ruled against Harvard on a one-day suspension of Hicks meted out in August, 1990. Although the arbitrator called Hicks' work record "distressing," he also criticized Shaffer and Union Manager Katherine E. D'Andria for failing to discuss their concerns with Hicks before suspending him.

The arbitrator ruled that there was no "just cause" for the suspension, which had been issued for an "unsatisfactory attendance record" and "poor performance."

And despite his determination that there was "no 'hard' evidence" that Hicks had been suspended in retribution for his labor union activities or to avenge the July, 1990 suspension reversal, the arbitrator did note "a coincidence of dates" in the University's disciplinary actions.

According to Hicks, he now has the "hard evidence" the arbitrator failed to find.

In October, 1991, Berry refused a request by Hicks to transfer out of the Union to another dining hall. In his letter to Hicks at the time, the HDS director cited a policy of not transferring workers who are presently being disciplined.

Hicks objected, noting the case of another Union employee who just two months later was transferred despite being demoted and suspended for poor performance.

In that employee's demotion, suspension and transfer order, dining hall Manager D'Andria catalogued (RIGHT WORD?) a litany of the employee's alleged infractions, concluding, "This suspension is based on your overall performance...including but not limited to, failure to meet job standards...failure to follow established procedures and instructions, insubordination, and failure to work cooperatively with fellow employees and management."

To Hicks, it appeared that an employeebeing disciplined had been given a transfer, contrary to Berry's assertion.

Carolyn R. Young, associate director of Harvard's Office of Human Resources, sought to clarify the apparent discrepancy HDS policy in a letter to Domenic M. Bozzotto, president of Local 26 of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union, to which Hicks belongs.

"Other examples of transfers of employees being disciplined...were in fact disciplinary transfers, i.e. transfers arising out of the disciplinary process and not at the request of the affected employee," Young wrote. "As an aside, in the case of the transfer that appears to have precipitated the grievance, the employee granted the transfer was more senior to Mr. Hicks."

Young has not returned repeated phone calls to her office since last week.

Hicks said the case typifies the discrimination he faces. In addition, he said, the demoted employee--whom D'Andria had charged in her reprimand with not using "sound judgment"--had complained repeatedly about Hicks, resulting in many of the disciplinary actions against him.

In the long run, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may or may not find in Hicks' favor, and the fired cook may or may not be reinstated.

But already, Hicks' crusade for the return of his job seems to have assumed proportions far larger than just a dispute involving one man and his employer.

Harvard's mealtime messiah--and the managers who work for him--may be facing a serious uprising in their largest dining hall, one that threatens to spread and involve students and HDS employees across the campus.

Said HRLA member Logan S. McCarty '96 earlier this week, "The issue is a pattern of discrimination, of people being treated unfairly, of people being discriminated [against] wrongly."

"It's a scary place to work," said one Union employee. "I've heard workers [at other Harvard dining halls] say they would quit before they work in the Union."

'[Hicks is] grabbing at straws, and the only one he's got is his color.' John P. Shaffer, Union assistant manager

'This is my personal feeling, that they don't care for Blacks.' An employee at the Harvard Union, speaking on condition of anonymityPhotoEdward H. WuFormer Harvard Union cook and shop steward DARRYL HICKS.