Security guards, parking monitors and museum attendants voted yesterday to establish a new union, only two weeks after they exited Local 254.

Sources said yesterday that the 67-49 vote was split along occupational lines. A large majority of the museum guards voted against the new union, citing a lack of involvement in the planning of the union, sources said.

But security guards said the establishment of the union ensured that they would no longer be under what they described as the ineffective leadership of 254.

"The only thing 254 gave me was a rubber stamp," one security guard said as he exited the voting.

Local 254 has also come under fire from custodial workers for a recent University contract that freezes wages for 20 months, reduces vacation time and decreases pay for sick time.

Guards accused Local 254 of cozying up to the University.

"Many people think the leadership of 254 had to be sleeping under a crimson-colored blanket," said one museum guard who did not want to be identified. "[Local 254 was] totally ineffective."

The guards' contract with Local 254 ended on November 15, and they are currently working for Harvard without a contract.

Harvard Director of Labor Relations Timothy R. Manning said the University is open to negotiating with the new union.

"All I can tell you is that I respect their choice to form the union," Manning said. "I am obligated to bargain with any union in good faith."

With a new contract soon to be negotiated, some guards were afraid Local 254 would be no more successful than it had been with the custodial workers, said David H. Guthrie, chief of security for Harvard Yard Operations.

While Guthrie said he was "tickled pink" about the new union, many museum guards, who represent about 45 of the 136 new union members, were skeptical.

Museum attendant Brian A. Johnson said that although "all of us voted against it," the 45 museum attendants simply could not override the approximately 75 security guards.

Various museum guards interviewed yesterday said that when the president of the new union, Stephen G. McCombe, petitioned the NLRB to create the union, McCombe did not have sufficient museum guard approval, if any at all.

"This is his own personal vendetta," said Johnson of McCombe's plans for the union.

McCombe faced similar allegations in 1993, when he represented minority security guards in racial harassment claims against the University.

In fact, one museum guard said no overtures of any kind were made to the museum guards until four days before the election. Bylaws, dues and initiation fees were all determined by the security guards.

"Now we'll be paying dues for an organization we're not sure can represent our personal interests," said the museum attendant.

Museum attendant Shaun Bennet said initiation fees for the new union will be $30 higher than those for Local 254. Bennet and Johnson also expressed concern that security guards might want to work in the museums and take away museum guard hours.

"These people have a job that we're not trained to do, and we have a job that they're not trained to do," said Johnson.

But security guards said they were not interested in the jobs of museum workers, primarily because the attendants are not as well paid.

Despite their differences, Bennet was confident that all the guards could work together to negotiate a new contract.

"Who knows? This could be a fresh start for us all," he said.

Jal D. Mehta contributed to the reporting of this story.