Harvard Dining Services (HDS) Director Michael P. Berry this week acknowledged that a recently fired cook was not the first to complain of on-the-job harassment and racial discrimination at the Harvard Union dining hall.

But Berry said a 1986 case which resulted in the termination of a supervisor for harassing employees based on their race, gender, or labor union activities was not in any way related to the allegations made by former Union cook Darryl Hicks.

Hicks, who also served as a labor union shop steward, was fired by Berry on April 2. Three months earlier, he had filed a set of formal complaints with state and federal agencies alleging that Harvard Union managers had discriminated against him because he is Black. Hicks has also said that he was harassed because of his work as a shop steward.

This week, Berry charged his former employee with harassing and intimidating fellow employees, marking a dramatic escalation of Berry's public criticism of Hicks.

The comments coincided with another Harvard administrator's decision this week to deny Hicks' third-step grievance of his termination. Associate Director of Labor Relations Carolyn R. Young '76, who denied the grievance, said in an interview earlier this week that she has never reversed an employee's termination to date.

Berry's comments also came as support for Hicks among students and co-workers appeared to be intensifying.

Nearly 500 first-year students signed a petition in support of Hicks that was circulated at the Harvard Union on Wednesday, and about 25 students and coworkers attended a meeting that evening to protest Hicks' termination.

At the meeting, Edward B. Childs a co-chief shop steward for Hicks labor union, said problems of discrimination and harassment at the College's largest dining hall date back several years.

In the 1986 incident, a seven-page grievance signed by 12 workers that charged a supervisor with racism, sexism and anti-unionism was torn-up by the Union's then-Assistant Manager Katherine E. D'Andria, Childs said.

D'Andria, who is now manager of the dining hall, did not return a phone call yesterday.

Berry confirmed that the grievance was filed on October 3, 1986 and said the complaint charged a supervisor with "shop steward harassment, physical harassment, sexual harassment and racial harassment."

Berry said the supervisor was fired as a result of the grievance.

The HDS director declined to release the grievance to The Crimson, but said he did not think D'Andria shredded the document since he had a copy of it.

Still, Berry--who just three weeks ago strongly defended D'Andria against charges that she condoned racial harassment at the Union--said he would continue to investigate the matter.

"Should I find that there was any sort of complicity [in tearing up the grievance], then it would [be a cause for concern]," Berry said.

D'Andria told The Crimson on April 13 that there were no problems of racial discrimination at the Union.

Berry also said yesterday that he had reprimanded the manager of the central College kitchen for not allowing women to work in the kitchen over spring break.

The manager, David Lentine, had cited the danger to his female employees of "noxious fumes" from the chemicals used to clean the kitchen over the vacation. Lentine's decision to employ only male workers over the holiday was later reversed.

"This is not a sexist thing," Berry said. "It was a mistake."

Lentine did not return repeated phone calls yesterday.

Berry denied charges leveled by workers at Wednesday's meeting that the Lentine incident was symptomatic of a larger sexual harassment problem at the College's dining halls. One worker described several incidents of alleged harassment, including cases in which female employees were allegedly "grabbed" and "pinched" by male co-workers and supervisors.

"I've heard none of those [allegations]," Berry said. "Every single one of those is totally unacceptable [if it happened]."

Students and workers at the meeting said Harvard's alleged harassment of Hicks is part of a University-wide anti-labor policy. "If anyone denies there's discrimination or anti-Unionism in the kitchens, it's a mockery of the truth," Childs said.

Berry denied that Hicks' fellow employees supported him. Berry said 65 of 72 Union workers voted to have Hicks recalled as shop steward one and a half years ago. He said Hicks, in his capacity as shop steward, did not file a grievance on behalf of any of his coworkers in the last 18 months.

Hicks disputed both claims, citing two workers on whose behalf he said he had filed recent grievances. Childs said managers had sought to have Hicks removed as shop steward by encouraging workers to sign a petition against him.

Berry said yesterday that he did not remember the two grievances Hicks said he filed. One of the workers involved would not comment on the alleged grievance and the other could not be reached for comment. Berry also denied the recall attempt had been organized by managers.

The HDS director also said Hicks had issued a death threat against a fellow employee. According to Hicks, the incident, for which he was suspended three days, resulted from a longstanding dispute with the other worker over a promotion.

"I never threatened his life or anybody else's life there," Hicks said. "If management really thought I threatened this guy's life, why would they leave me in the same dining hall with him to carry out the threat?"

Hicks was not transferred despite repeated requests. Berry said Hicks had also harassed other employees.

"Recently, one employee complained to us that she had to have her phone disconnected because Darryl bothered her so often," Berry said.

Hicks denied the charge. "That's never happened. You don't see anything in my record mentioning that.