The union aimed much of its rhetoric at President Bok--who as a law professor helped author a number of pro-labor books. In the process, a number of articles in the national press were written about Bok and his apparent switch on the issue of organized labor.

Labor experts at the time said, however, that the University was acting within the law, and that HUCTW was asking for Harvard to behave in an unprecedented way during an employee union election.

After the union won the right to represent the support staff in collective bargaining by a narrow 44-vote margin, the University challenged the election, claiming that HUCTW organizers were guilty of illegal electioneering on election day.

The union called Harvard's appeal an anti-union tactic, accusing them of using the delay to take advantage of summer employee turnover--which is near 40 percent--to weaken the union. If Harvard had won its appeal the vote would have been retaken.

In this battle of rhetoric, the University said that it had an obligation to the staff members who had not voted for the union--which, including those who did not vote at all, was more than 50 percent of the staff--to oppose the election if HUCTW organizers had intimidated employees to vote.

Labor experts again said that although delays of this sort are a common anti-union tactic, if the University had evidence that the union was guilty of unfair labor practices, the challenge was not unreasonable.

However, an NLRB judge ruled on Monday that the union was not guilty of illegal campaigning on election day, saying the vote was valid and the union should be certified.

In his ruling, Administrative Judge Joel A. Harmatz concluded that the University's appeal was unreasonable, calling portions of Harvard's charges "frivolous and argumentative."

The University had charged the union with illegally keeping lists of employees who voted and how they cast their votes, surveillance and campaigning in the polling areas and providing discriminatory transportation to the polls.

Harmatz, said that the University's charges were insufficient to overturn a vote, and that its witnesses did not support the charges they made.

Harmatz said in his decision that he hoped the University would not appeal the case to the NLRB because it had no merit.

Although the University has not decided yet whether to object, immediately after Harmatz's decision was announced, Vice President for Finance Robert H. Scott said Harvard did not agree with the substance of the judge's ruling.

Anne H. Taylor, the University's director of human resourses, agreed with Scott, adding that at times Harmatz's language in the decision was "unjudicial."

Currently, Bok is deciding whether Harvard will appeal, and HUCTW has launched another campaign to swing public opinion against the University, by accusing them of trying to delay a support staff union.

Thursday, more than 150 HUCTW supporters held a vigil in front of Bok's home to encourage a speedy decision. Student supporters of the union have pressed an Undergraduate Council commitee to author a resolution asking Bok not to appeal the decision. And the union has encouraged community members to write and call Bok, asking him to make a quick decision to go ahead with contract negotiations.

The union's reaction to this step in the campaign is similar to what it has been at other crucial tactical moments: mobilize public opinion to pressure the University.

Before this juncture, the adminstration has taken a strictly legal interpretation of its actions. But labor experts say that at this stage the University will be taking a step in a more clearly anti-union direction if they choose to appeal the ruling.

"It does seem to be a turning point in terms of the University conduct in the case," Heckscher said.