Union President Drops Hicks Case

The labor union representing Harvard's dining hall workers will not pursue the grievance of a former cook in the Harvard Union who was fired after complaining of racial harassment and on the job discrimination.

Domenic N. Bozzotto, president of Local 26 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, decided last week not to seek independent arbitration in the case of the former cook, Darryl Hicks, who also served as a shop steward for the union.

In response, Hicks said he would initiate proceedings against the union for failing to represent him properly, and may hire an attorney to pursue his case against the University.

Bozzotto did not return a message left at his office and his home phone was out of order, and Union Attorney George E. O'Brien would not comment on the case.

Local 26 Business Agent John L. Rodrigues said he did not know why Bozzotto had decided not to pursue the grievance.

Hicks was fired by Harvard Dining Services Director Michael P. Berry on April 2.

Three months earlier, Hicks filed a set of state and federal complaints alleging that he was harassed and discriminated against at Harvard because he is Black. Hicks has also charged Berry with terminating him because of his outspoken union activity.

Berry has repeatedly and forcefully denied Hicks' charges, saying the worker was fired because he was an unsatisfactory employee with a lengthy disciplinary history and a poor attendance record.

Berry's decision to fire Hicks was upheld on a third'-step grievance by Carolyn R. Young '76, associate director for labor relations in Harvard's Office of Human Resources. The standard next step in appealing the termination would have been for the labor union to take the case to an independent arbitrator.

Students and co-workers have rallied to Hicks' side over the past several weeks. More than 500 students signed a petition urging Berry to reinstate the fired cook, and several of Hicks' fellow shop stewards--who are circulating a similar petition--have spoken out on his behalf.

Rodrigues said Bozzotto was aware of the shop stewards' petition when he made his decision.

"Mr. Bozzotto is well aware of that petition and he made that decision based on the legal advice he got from Mr. O'Brien," Rodrigues said.

Hicks said Rodrigues informed him last week of the union's decision but did not provide him with a reason for it. He said he had left three telephone messages for Bozzotto that were not returned.

The fired cook said he would file a complaint against the union with the National Labor Relations Board today. He charged the union leaders with repeatedly refusing to pursue grievances of his disciplinary record, saying the leaders had called the incidents "minor issues [that were] too petty to go to arbitration."

"I never really trusted them backing me up because they were letting things go by," Hicks said. "I'm not going to let the union get away with it either, because I am totally innocent of all charges that Harvard has ever made on me."

Hicks speculated that Bozzotto's decision could have been prompted by the expense of arbitration proceedings or Bozzotto's own alleged troubles leading the union.

"He's been having problems with the hotel membership ever since their last contract," Hicks said. "Clearly Harvard knows this and they're violating the contract and walking all over people."

Neither Rodrigues nor O'Brien would comment on whether money was a factor in the decision. O'Brien said arbitrating cases involves "a very considerable cost." Rodrigues said the union moves many cases to arbitration.

Hicks also said he was not ruling out the possibility that Harvard had pressured the union into not pursuing the case.

But both Rodrigues and Berry vigorously denied that the University had used pressure tactics or had offered the union a deal if it did not pursue the case.

"We don't do that as a principle," Rodrigues said. "It's not acceptable."

"None of it is a deal or none of it is pressure," Berry said. "That's not the way we work."

Berry said the union's decision was not unexpected. "I have a very strong respect for the union's leadership and I think they made a judgement based on sound principles and practice," Berry said.

Edward B. Childs, a co-chief shop steward for the labor union who works at the Adams House dining hall, said the decision not to pursue arbitration would not bring to a halt the efforts of Hicks' co-workers to win his job back.

"I disagree with [the decision], but it's not going to be won in arbitration," said Childs, who has been vocal in his support of Hicks. "Most major cases we don't win through arbitration.... The case of discrimination, the case of racism and prejudice at Harvard is not going to be won in court."

Childs said dining hall workers would continue to agitate on Hicks' behalf. He said members of several unions plan to picket in front of Holyoke Center on Thursday--Commencement day--to protest Harvard's treatment of its workers and Hicks' termination.

"We think it's a racist, anti-union firing and we're going to add pressure to Harvard to deal with the case," Childs said.

Meanwhile Hicks--whose racial discrimination complaints against Harvard are still being investigated by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--said he is also considering retaining a private attorney to pursue his case against the University.

"This fight I'm going to take all the way," said Hicks. "They're totally wrong and I'm not going to sit back and allow them to do this to me.

The fired cook said he would file a complaint against the union with the National Labor Relations Board today. He charged the union leaders with repeatedly refusing to pursue grievances of his disciplinary record, saying the leaders had called the incidents "minor issues [that were] too petty to go to arbitration."

"I never really trusted them backing me up because they were letting things go by," Hicks said. "I'm not going to let the union get away with it either, because I am totally innocent of all charges that Harvard has ever made on me."

Hicks speculated that Bozzotto's decision could have been prompted by the expense of arbitration proceedings or Bozzotto's own alleged troubles leading the union.

"He's been having problems with the hotel membership ever since their last contract," Hicks said. "Clearly Harvard knows this and they're violating the contract and walking all over people."

Neither Rodrigues nor O'Brien would comment on whether money was a factor in the decision. O'Brien said arbitrating cases involves "a very considerable cost." Rodrigues said the union moves many cases to arbitration.

Hicks also said he was not ruling out the possibility that Harvard had pressured the union into not pursuing the case.

But both Rodrigues and Berry vigorously denied that the University had used pressure tactics or had offered the union a deal if it did not pursue the case.

"We don't do that as a principle," Rodrigues said. "It's not acceptable."

"None of it is a deal or none of it is pressure," Berry said. "That's not the way we work."

Berry said the union's decision was not unexpected. "I have a very strong respect for the union's leadership and I think they made a judgement based on sound principles and practice," Berry said.

Edward B. Childs, a co-chief shop steward for the labor union who works at the Adams House dining hall, said the decision not to pursue arbitration would not bring to a halt the efforts of Hicks' co-workers to win his job back.

"I disagree with [the decision], but it's not going to be won in arbitration," said Childs, who has been vocal in his support of Hicks. "Most major cases we don't win through arbitration.... The case of discrimination, the case of racism and prejudice at Harvard is not going to be won in court."

Childs said dining hall workers would continue to agitate on Hicks' behalf. He said members of several unions plan to picket in front of Holyoke Center on Thursday--Commencement day--to protest Harvard's treatment of its workers and Hicks' termination.

"We think it's a racist, anti-union firing and we're going to add pressure to Harvard to deal with the case," Childs said.

Meanwhile Hicks--whose racial discrimination complaints against Harvard are still being investigated by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--said he is also considering retaining a private attorney to pursue his case against the University.

"This fight I'm going to take all the way," said Hicks. "They're totally wrong and I'm not going to sit back and allow them to do this to me.