THE LUNCH-HOUR walkout staged last week by members of Local 26 of the Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Employees Union brought to the fore a number of issues which have clouded Harvard's labor relations picture all year. There was obviously more at stake in this walkout than the serving of hamburgers; this fact has been especially borne out by the manner in which the University is treating the walkout and those who participated in it.

Harvard apparently threatened last week to fire Alan Balsam, chief shop steward for Local 26, following an incident involving the serving of hamburgers. Balsam has long been active and outspoken in defending workers against the University's blatant anti-union policies. Thus it is not at all surprising that the University should seize the first available opportunity to remove him. The immediate pretext in this case was the hamburger dispute; the "hit man" was Buford Simpson, manager of the College Dining Halls.

Simpson's dealings with workers have never been marked with fairness. According to several workers and students who have seen Simpson in action, he likes his workers to be docile, cooperative--and white. Both black and white workers in the College Dining Hall--Balsam included--have recently criticized Simpson for his overt racism; Simpson, for his part, has remained silent on the issue. He also remained silent, in fact, through the recent Paul Glass case. Glass, himself black, was suspended by Simpson for what Glass characterized as "racial reasons."

The Glass case remains unresolved, but the University community has been informed that an investigation of the matter is taking place--under the direction of none other than Buford Simpson. In fact, Simpson is also investigating last Monday's walkout. Simpson, who epitomizes the institutional racism which exists at Harvard, is being called upon to conduct an investigation the results of which are to be considered valid by both sides of the dispute. The investigation will, no doubt, be followed by professions of faith in Simpson by both Edward Powers, associate general counsel for employee relations, and Frank Weissbecker, director of the food services--and Simpson's judgment will surely prevail.

The handling of the walkout again calls into question the validity of the University's highly-touted internal investigatory process. Workers, confronted with the perverse turns which this process has taken--in the Holcombe, Trudel and Glass Gases--cannot here be expected to trust its impartiality.

The University has only proven the validity of grievances continually voiced by the workers this year by isolating and intimidating witnesses to various actions connected with the walkout, by threatening individual workers with reprisals, and by attempting to divide the union by praising those who refused to honor the walkout. An extreme case of University intimidation is that of Sylvia Gallagher, a worker in the College Dining Hall who left Eliot House last Monday to inform Adams House workers of the walkout. Gallagher has apparently been threatened with punishment by the University for her role in the walkout; she was also briefly shown, but denied a copy of a letter outlining her alleged actions in the walkout.

Allegations raised by Sherman Holcombe in his recent battle against suspension--of the isolation and intimidation of workers and witnesses, the withholding of evidence placed on workers' job records, and the malfunctioning of the internal grievance process--all seem to be confirmed by this case. The University's actions seem to be part of a coherent, if unstated, policy of union-busting on Harvard's part. Its behavior in this case is especially unconscionable in light of the upcoming contract negotiations, and the running debate about part-time summer employment for kitchen workers.

Harvard must abandon its anti-union policies. Simpson should resign, or at least be removed from his current managerial role; his actions in the Glass case and in the current case should be investigated by an impartial third party unconnected to the Food Services or the Personnel Office. All threats of punishment against workers who participated in the walkout last week should be made public and retracted with a complete apology. Frank Weissbecker should remove himself from an investigatory role in this and other cases involving kitchen workers. Powers must withdraw his blind support of managers without regard to their treatment of workers.

The University should appoint an independent task force to consider the deteriorating labor-management situation at Harvard, with the goals of eliminating racism in the dining halls and elsewhere, instituting worker-management dialogue and some degree of worker participation in management decision making, and strict adherence to both the letter and the spirit of the workers' contract agreement.

Finally, students must realize that their silence helps to make Harvard's anti-union policies possible. The workers need the support of all the members of the Harvard community, and their position is undermined when students take over their jobs during emergency union meetings. With contract negotiations due early in the fall and with retaliatory action against the union possible over the summer, it is important that students express support for the workers now. Students can most effectively help the kitchen workers by sending petitions to Frank Weissbecker and by visiting him to register their concern about, and disapproval of, the University's labor policies, as some students have already done.

The University must come to realize that its anti-union practices, its threats against workers, its support of corrupt managers, and its unwillingness to yield to worker demands can only serve to further alienate its workers. The workers have legitimate grievances and the right to participate in union activity. Their harassment should end at once.