University kitchen workers last night ratified by a near-unanimous vote Harvard's final proposal for a new contract. The vote clears the way for the signing of a contract by representatives of both sides sometime next week.

The ratification of the new pact follows more than two months of on-and-off negotiations, which culminated in the drafting of the final contract proposal two weeks ago.

The contract gives workers a 25-cent per hour pay increase retroactive to June 22, and a total 50-cent per hour boost over the two-year life of the pact.

The workers had originally requested a larger retroactive pay hike and an 18-month contract.

Happy Ending

"I feel pleased," Alan Balsam, chief shop steward for Local 26 of the Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Employees Union--which represents Harvard's nearly 450 kitchen workers--said yesterday, adding, "Our reservations about the contract were negligible."

Over 200 workers were on hand for last night's closed-door ratification vote at the Sheraton Commander Hotel.

According to Balsam, nearly 40 of the workers delivered speeches about the contract at the meeting.

"There was some very spirited discussion before the contract was ratified by the membership," he added.

Balsam estimated that "only about four or five" workers voted against the agreement, and said a majority favored making the vote unanimous.

The contract negotiations began June 3, the same day Harvard announced it was suspending three shop stewards--including Balsam--for their roles in a May lunch-hour walkout. That action followed a dispute between Balsam and the manager of the College Dining Hall over the serving of hamburgers.

Welfare

The new contract also includes a "health and safety" clause, which protects workers from potentially hazardous job assignments, as well as what Balsam characterized several weeks ago as "a Miranda clause."

That clause forces dining hall supervisors to advise workers faced with disciplinary action of their right to have a union representative present during any discussion of their infraction or punishment.

The latter two items emerged largely as a result of the dispute surrounding the suspension of Radcliffe dining hall shop steward Sherman Holcombe last February. Holcombe's suspension--which the University later lifted--raised serious questions concerning the fairness of the University's internal employee grievance process.

Holcombe was an outspoken critic of the University's failure to post available dining jobs, because he said the omission permitted favoritism on the part of some managers, and discrimination against black and minority workers.

Holcombe was one of the speakers at last night's meeting, and according to Balsam, was "received with a lot of applause."

"We've got to keep fighting over the next few years on several points," Balsam said. "But right now, we're pretty happy.