And despite his determination that there was "no 'hard' evidence" that Hicks had been suspended in retribution for his labor union activities or to avenge the July, 1990 suspension reversal, the arbitrator did note "a coincidence of dates" in the University's disciplinary actions.
According to Hicks, he now has the "hard evidence" the arbitrator failed to find.
In October, 1991, Berry refused a request by Hicks to transfer out of the Union to another dining hall. In his letter to Hicks at the time, the HDS director cited a policy of not transferring workers who are presently being disciplined.
Hicks objected, noting the case of another Union employee who just two months later was transferred despite being demoted and suspended for poor performance.
In that employee's demotion, suspension and transfer order, dining hall Manager D'Andria catalogued (RIGHT WORD?) a litany of the employee's alleged infractions, concluding, "This suspension is based on your overall performance...including but not limited to, failure to meet job standards...failure to follow established procedures and instructions, insubordination, and failure to work cooperatively with fellow employees and management."
To Hicks, it appeared that an employeebeing disciplined had been given a transfer, contrary to Berry's assertion.
Carolyn R. Young, associate director of Harvard's Office of Human Resources, sought to clarify the apparent discrepancy HDS policy in a letter to Domenic M. Bozzotto, president of Local 26 of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union, to which Hicks belongs.
"Other examples of transfers of employees being disciplined...were in fact disciplinary transfers, i.e. transfers arising out of the disciplinary process and not at the request of the affected employee," Young wrote. "As an aside, in the case of the transfer that appears to have precipitated the grievance, the employee granted the transfer was more senior to Mr. Hicks."
Young has not returned repeated phone calls to her office since last week.
Hicks said the case typifies the discrimination he faces. In addition, he said, the demoted employee--whom D'Andria had charged in her reprimand with not using "sound judgment"--had complained repeatedly about Hicks, resulting in many of the disciplinary actions against him.
In the long run, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may or may not find in Hicks' favor, and the fired cook may or may not be reinstated.
But already, Hicks' crusade for the return of his job seems to have assumed proportions far larger than just a dispute involving one man and his employer.
Harvard's mealtime messiah--and the managers who work for him--may be facing a serious uprising in their largest dining hall, one that threatens to spread and involve students and HDS employees across the campus.
Said HRLA member Logan S. McCarty '96 earlier this week, "The issue is a pattern of discrimination, of people being treated unfairly, of people being discriminated [against] wrongly."
"It's a scary place to work," said one Union employee. "I've heard workers [at other Harvard dining halls] say they would quit before they work in the Union."
'[Hicks is] grabbing at straws, and the only one he's got is his color.' John P. Shaffer, Union assistant manager
'This is my personal feeling, that they don't care for Blacks.' An employee at the Harvard Union, speaking on condition of anonymity