With almost 5,000 Harvard employees associated with the University's eight unions, labor organizers and contract negotiators have their hands full.

This year was no exception.

Harvard's union of custodial workers, Local 254, was first to make the news with intra-union conflict.

In late September, union members approved a new three-year contract which many employees said they had never seen in its entirety.

According to several workers, union members were given only 45 minutes to read and discuss a four-page summary of the pact which was provided before the group was forced out of Science Center B by a Harvard class.

The new contract brought the wages of Harvard's custodial workers in line with the market, according to Timothy R. Manning, director of labor relations.

A survey completed by The Crimson of wages of custodial workers at local colleges revealed that, like Harvard, some pay about $8 an hour, which is close to the market wage. Yet others pay up to $14 an hour.

To explain Harvard's wages, University officials point to the growing cost of education and the need to keep administrative costs down.

But many of the full-time workers said they were not well-represented by the union in the bargaining process, had little input in the negotiations and were not sufficiently informed about the deal prior to the vote.

"Our union doesn't care about the interests of Harvard employees," said Ray Clarke, a worker in Yard operations and a shop steward for the union.

The deal froze wages for the first two months of the three-year contract. Negotiations for salary increases may begin only after July 1, 1998. The agreement also reduced vacation time and decreased sick pay but allowed employees to take advantage of a short-term disability plan, Manning said.

"Dorm crew workers will make more than new full-time custodians," Clarke said.

Angered by the contract they inked, disgruntled custodial workers asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in October to nullify the agreement.

Union members charged that Cathy Conway, their business agent, represented them in bad faith during the negotiations and the vote.

Despite these complaints, the NLRB did not find any evidence of wrongdoing, Clarke said.