The acting chairman of the Harvard Employees Organizing Committee (HEOC) said yesterday that a statement by Harvard in last week's University Gazette concerning compulsory membership in District 65's proposed union was "misleading and intimidating" as well as "legally untrue."

In The Gazette's feature. "I'm Glad You Asked That question." Harvard answered the question. "Would I have to join a union if one were certified at Harvard?" by saying. "Compulsory membership of all eligible employees is normally a top priority negotiating demand of a union."

"All of Harvard's union contracts provide for compulsory membership." The Gazette continued. "If a union were certified and a union shop agreement negotiated, an employee who refused to join the union would lose his her job."

Ronald Burns, chairman of HEOC, said that by publishing the statement. Harvard was attempting to frighten employees away from supporting the unionizing drive.

In a letter to The Gazette, Burns said. "When we unionize here at Harvard, our membership will decide whether or not to have a union shop."

If a shop is set up at Harvard. Burns added, non-union employees will have to pay an agency fee equivalent to union dues.

But, Burns said, "No one will be forced to choose between joining the union and losing their jobs."

He called the statement in The Gazette "an outright attempt to emotionalize the issue."

Daniel Steiner '54, general counsel to the University, said he would not comment on Burn's charges but said The Gazette's statement was merely a "factual" answer