Harvard has yet to respond officially to a series of allegations made in October by the in-house policemen's union against the University and Chief Paul E. Johnson, but administration officials say the charges are unfair and misleading.

Police officers voted 24-14-3 in late October in favor of a "no confidence" motion against Johnson, charging that he doesn't "go to bat" for officers and has consistently failed to resolve labor disputes within the department.

The Harvard University Police Association, which represents Harvard's 41 non-administrative field officers, also recently filed suit to force Harvard to comply with an arbiter's binding decision in a case involving an officer discharged last year.

University officials yesterday said they support Johnson, but refused all comment on union suit.

Bum Rap

Edward W. Powers, director of administration and associate general counsel for employee relations, said yesterday of the union allegations, "I would consider those bum raps, especially against the chief."

Powers said Johnson should not be held responsible for the suit involving the discharged officer, saying it does not "represent a problem in the department." "Cases going to arbitration are ultimately my responsibility, not his," he said.

Vice President and General Counsel Daniel Stiener '54 said last month, "I think [Johnson] is doing a good job for the University." He gave no indication that the chief's job is in question.

Johnson, in his first public comment on the allegations, said yesterday, "I think the allegations have been exaggerated to some degree...You might get a different perspective [than that of the union] if you spoke to other members of the department."

Johnson said last week he would not comment on the charges because, "These are in-house matters which are either in litigation or arbitration. I'm not going to fan those fires."

Grievances

The "no-confidence" vote was the culmination of a series of officers' grievances against Johnson.

Thomas E. Mercier, president of the union, said one major grievance was that Johnson was "not responsive" to union attempts to discuss labor problems within the department.

Another such issue concerns charges of racial discrimination and harassment which were leveled against the Harvard police last year by minority students. Mercier said that Johnson's support for the officers involved was insufficient.

The union is also concerned about what it calls the lack of compensation for incapacitated officers.

Powers said union claims that the University is stalling on paying workman's compensation are unfair because officers are sometimes unwilling to discuss how they were injured.

Citing one example, Powers said, "That officer has refused to answer questions regarding that incident. Insurance companies investigate all of their claims, and we have to investigate all claims for workman's comp."

Mercier said the only issue on which Johnson has taken action is the abolishment of a 35 mph speed limit for officers responding to a priority one emergency. He said that move came only after five months of requests.

Nearly one month ago the union sent a letter detailing its grievances to Steiner, Johnson's immediate superior. Mercier said Steiner has not responded to the union's complaints.

The Court Case

The court case filed by the union involves what it calls the University's failure to observe binding arbitration, a stipulation of the policemen's contract.

In a case last June, an arbiter ruled that an officer who had been fired for using excessive force should be fully reinstated with back pay.

Instead, said Mercier, "He is working as a civilian dispatcher, and is not allowed to work overtime because he is not a police officer."

J. Richard Radcliffe, an associate at Zisson and Veara, the firm representing the union, said, "At the Harvard-Dartmouth game he was the only officer without overtime, yet he has seniority over officers who were assigned overtime."

According to Radcliffe, Harvard has not officially addressed itself to the union's complaints and asked yesterday for more time to respond to the suit.

No date has been set for the case, which will be heard in federal district court.

James S. Rubin contributed to the reporting of this article.