Alianza Dominicana

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1998

325 N.L.R.B. 987 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

987
325 NLRB No. 186
ALIANZA DOMINICANA
1 The Charging Party has excepted to some of the judge’s credibil-
ity findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an ad-
ministrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear pre-
ponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are
incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd.
188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record
and find no basis for reversing the findings. We further find no merit
in the Charging Party’s contention that she was denied due process.
Alianza Dominicana and Union of Needletrades In-
dustrial and Textile Employees, AFL–CIO,
CLC and Iris Almanzar and Cecilia Salcedo.
Cases 2–CA–27709, 2–CA–27785, and 2–CA–
28755
June 30, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, HURTGEN, AND BRAME
On November 25, 1997, Administrative Law Judge
Eleanor MacDonald issued the attached decision.
Charging Party Almanzar filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative law
judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed.
Terry A. Morgan, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Rita A. Hernandez, Esq. (Schulte, Roth & Zabel), of New
York, New York, for the Respondent.
Wilfredo Larancuent, of New York, New York, for the
Charging Party Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELEANOR MACDONALD, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard in New York, New York, on 6 days between
September 25, 1996, and January 31, 1997. The consolidated
amended complaint alleges that Respondent, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, suspended and dis-
charged Guadalupe Rodriguez and then refused to reinstate
Rodriguez, lowered the evaluation of and discharged Iris
Almanzar, discharged Cecilia Salcedo, and interrogated em-
ployees about their support for the Union. The Respondent
denies that it has engaged in any violations of the Act.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a domestic corporation with an office and
place of business in New York, New York, is engaged in the
operation of a social service agency. Annually, Respondent
derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000 of which in ex-
cess of $50,000 is received from the City of New York. Re-
spondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act and that the Union of Needletrades Industrial and
Textile Employees, AFL–CIO, CLC is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent Alianza Dominicana is a social service agency
founded in 1987 by a group that was active in the Dominican
community of upper Manhattan. At first, Alianza operated
out of a store front with very few employees, but in the
years 1989–1990, Alianza secured funding to expand its op-
erations and 30 to 40 new people were hired. In 1990–1991,
another 30 to 40 employees were added as existing commu-
nity service projects were expanded and new projects were
undertaken. By 1994, the staff numbered from 70 to 80 em-
ployees. Although Alianza no longer conducted its mission
from a store front, it still displayed the characteristics of a
fledgling organization. For example, Alianza was severely
criticized for failing to keep adequate records to document
the provision of drop-out prevention services to students at
various high schools. As the testimony in the instant case
was presented, it became obvious that Alianza did not have
personnel procedures and rules in existence which were ade-
quate to deal with its growing number of employees. Re-
spondent did not maintain personnel files in a timely and ef-
ficient manner and it did not have a practice of placing a
written record of warnings and comments in the personnel
files of employees. The lack of certain policies and proce-
dures during the time relevant to the instant case led to fa-
voritism and an atmosphere of intrigue.
Moises Perez, a founder of Alianza Dominicana in 1987,
serves as its executive director. Alianza is governed by a
board of directors, but the precise degree of involvement of
the Board in the affairs of the agency is not clear on the
record.
In 1993, Alianza undertook to change its internal govern-
ance procedures. A steering committee was created with the
responsibility to set policies for the agency, to make deci-
sions concerning the administration of agency programs and
operations and to insure that the agency’s mission is imple-
mented. The steering committee began work in July 1993. It
meets every Friday morning at 9 a.m. In addition to the pol-
icy and decision-making functions set forth above, the steer-
ing committee also works on the expansion of Alianza’s
services by designing new programs and searching for funds
to support them, it determines job descriptions for employ-
ees, designs the forms and the process to be used in conduct-
ing employee evaluations, decides how many holidays will
be granted to employees, chooses a health insurance carrier
and determines health benefits, discusses the disciplining of
specific employees, and is the forum for discussions about
hiring and firing specific employees. The committee drafted
a personnel policy manual and it approved the final draft be-
fore it was submitted to the board of directors for ultimate
approval. According to Raymond Saltini, who became the
special assistant to Executive Director Perez in 1992 and was
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00987 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
988 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Rodriguez signed both the authorization card and the authoriza-
tion sheet as director of the immigration program.
2 Rodriguez was sometimes identified by the name Lupe. 3 This program is often referred to as AIDP.
named director of administration in November 1994, a deci-
sion to terminate an employee is always announced at a
steering committee meeting and is subject to the committee’s
final decision. When budget cuts necessitate that employees
be laid off, the steering committee decides which budget
lines will be eliminated and which employees will be let go.
The steering committee has 12 to 15 members, including the
executive director, the director of administration, the director
of personnel and the various program directors.
A major function of the steering committee at its inception
was to oversee an initiative called the service integration
plan. Service integration was an attempt to insure that
Alianza’s employees work with entire families as opposed to
only individuals within the family. This concept had always
been a keystone of the agency’s philosophy, but Alianza had
grown so much that service integration could no longer be
done informally. Procedures had to be written down and fol-
lowed. The agency spent many hours implementing its serv-
ice integration plan and it raised money to support the initia-
tive and hired a consultant to help the process succeed. In
1993, the steering committee developed the mechanisms for
service integration including the reorganization of Alianza’s
programs and staff training. A meeting off the premises of
Alianza, called a retreat, was planned for the summer of
1994 in order to asses the implementation and success of the
service integration plan. Certain problems concerning service
integration remained to be resolved and it was expected that
the steering committee would return from the retreat with a
plan of action to be presented to the staff. Planning for the
retreat went on for several months and a facilitator was en-
gaged to help run the retreat. Attendance at the retreat was
mandatory for steering committee members.
Wilfredo Larancuent, the organizing director for the Union
here, had been acquainted with Guadalupe Rodriguez,
Alianza’s director of immigration, since 1986 through their
joint participation in community service activities. Following
a telephone call from Rodriguez, she and Larancuent met on
July 29. Rodriguez told Larancuent that she had heard that
she was going to be fired. Rodriguez and Larancuent dis-
cussed organizing Respondent, and at Larancuent’s behest,
Rodriguez told him about some problems at the agency.
Larancuent told Rodriguez that the Union was not ready to
commit to an organizational campaign. Rodriguez asked
Larancuent for a union authorization card and she later
signed a card which she dated August 1, 1994. In early Au-
gust, the Union decided to commence an organizing drive at
Alianza. Beginning on August 8, a number of employees, in-
cluding Rodriguez, signed a sheet authorizing the Union to
represent them.1 The Union demanded recognition in a letter
dated September 16. The Union filed a petition for represen-
tation on September 23, 1994.
B. Credibility of the Witnesses
Guadalupe Rodriguez testified at length in the proceeding.2
Rodriguez was an extremely uncooperative witness. She re-
sisted identifying documents bearing her signature and she
persisted in denying facts set forth in documents which were
shown to her. On countless occasions, Rodriguez flatly de-
nied facts that were proven to exist by documentary evi-
dence. Rodriguez was unwilling to answer questions posed
by Counsel for Respondent and at various times she refused
to listen to questions during her cross examination. She had
to be admonished to answer questions asked by counsel for
the Respondent. At one point, Rodriguez became so unco-
operative on cross-examination that she refused to list the
four programs she had worked on while she was employed
by Respondent. Rodriguez’ testimony was replete with incon-
sistencies and she constantly contradicted her own testimony.
I find that Rodriguez was not testifying to the facts as she
recalled them but was tailoring her testimony in ways that
she perceived would hurt Respondent and help herself. Hav-
ing observed Rodriguez during her lengthy testimony and
having carefully read the transcript, it is impossible to say
what might be true in all of the testimony that was obviously
fabricated by Rodriguez in an effort to cast Respondent in
an unfavorable light. I find that Rodriguez’ testimony is un-
reliable and I shall not credit it.
Iris Almanzar’s testimony shows that she did not recall
many things about her employment at Alianza. She could not
correctly name the two programs she worked in, she testified
contrary to the documentary evidence and she often contra-
dicted her affidavit given to a Regional Office agent at a
time close to the events about which she was testifying. As
will be seen below, I shall not credit Almanzar where her
testimony is contradicted by more accurate witnesses.
As will be discussed below, Cecilia Salcedo changed her
testimony from two affidavits given to a Regional Office
agent and she refused to acknowledge facts which were set
forth in documents placed before her at the instant hearing.
My observation of Salcedo at the hearing was that she was
a highly intelligent and resourceful witness and that when-
ever she was confronted with an inconvenient question she
devised an answer to avoid any unfavorable implications that
would arise if instead she told the truth. I find that Salcedo’s
testimony is not credible and I shall not rely on it where it
is contradicted by more accurate evidence.
The other witnesses called by the parties testified to the
best of their recollections given the usual problems caused by
the passage of time. I have evaluated their testimony accord-
ingly.
C. Guadalupe Rodriguez
Guadalupe Rodriguez was hired in February, 1990, as the
Director of the Attendance Improvement and Drop-out Pre-
vention program which Alianza was beginning to implement
at George Washington High School pursuant to a contract it
had obtained from the New York City Board of Education.3
Rodriguez supervised the staff members at the school, in-
structed them concerning their job duties, checked their sign
in sheets and made sure that services were provided to stu-
dents in accord with the Board of Education contract require-
ments. Rodriguez had a staff of four employees. She signed
their timesheets as their supervisor.
The AIDP program at George Washington High School
was a success, and Alianza took over a program that another
agency had been running for the Board of Education at Pub-
lic School 153. Rodriguez became the AIDP director at PS
153. The understanding with the Board of Education pro-
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00988 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
989ALIANZA DOMINICANA
4 CREO stands for Center for Rehabilitation, Education and Ori-
entation.
5 These staff members included Jocelyn Aponte, Claudio Seriano,
Miriam Mejia, and Dulce Ramos. 6 LaPlaza is a community school project of Alianza.
vided that two staff members of the former agency would be
retained. In addition, Rodriguez hired Fannie Pena to work
at the school. Rodriguez was responsible for supervising the
staff, ensuring that the contract goals were met and that serv-
ices were provided to students, that home visits were made
and that employee timesheets were completed so that the
staff could be paid. Rodriguez exercised the initiative to de-
velop an after school portion of this program.
After 1 year, Rodriguez transferred to the Family Assist-
ance program. Her task was to develop immigration services
and to train for the implementation of the CREO program
which was then being planned.4 The purpose of the CREO
program was to help drug addicts and Rodriguez was sup-
posed to develop a plan to deal with the immigration and
citizenship needs of the CREO participants. Rodriguez under-
went 1 year of training in preparation for the launching of
the CREO program, but when it was ready to receive clients
she informed Perez that she did not want to deal with drug
addicts and that she was afraid of conducting home visits to
see these clients. Perez told Rodriguez that he was dis-
appointed and that it was unfair of her to withdraw at the
last minute after 1 year of discussions and training. Never-
theless, Perez recruited someone else to perform the role that
Rodriguez had been preparing for and Rodriguez continued
to develop and seek funding for the immigration component
of the program.
In 1993, Rodriguez assumed the title of director of immi-
gration services and was assigned by Perez to focus exclu-
sively on the immigration needs of the existing clients of
Alianza. As the director of immigration services for Alianza,
Rodriguez had a staff that fluctuated seasonally. During the
summers, there was an influx of workers who were em-
ployed pursuant to a City of New York summer youth em-
ployment program; in 1993 Rodriguez had 15 to 20 students
in the immigration project and in 1994 she had 8. Rodriguez
signed the work sponsor agreement for the summer youth
employees as the ‘‘Director Immigration.’’ In addition, em-
ployees of Alianza were assigned as supervisors of the sum-
mer youth employees under the direction of Rodriguez.
These supervisors were chosen after interviews conducted by
Rodriguez and Marlon Guerrero, the director of education
and employment at Alianza. The testimony of Sandino
Sanchez, a member of the steering committee, establishes
that Rodriguez fired one of these supervisors named Jose
Duran. Rodriguez had a permanent staff member named
Kares Alvarado who was a year round employee of Alianza.
Rodriguez directed the work of the supervisors and of Alva-
rado. Other permanent staff members of Alianza were di-
rected to work in the immigration program as a mandatory
part of their duties, and their schedules were changed so that
they could be assigned to the immigration program.5 Em-
ployees in the immigration program helped process citizen-
ship applications and taught citizenship classes. The testi-
mony of Guerrero, the documentary evidence and Rodriguez’
own affidavit show that Rodriguez instructed all the staff
members in their duties. Rodriguez interviewed the summer
staff, trained them in their job duties, assigned them their
tasks, evaluated their work, and saw to it that they were paid.
The summer employees were paid from the Alianza budget
pursuant to a contract with the Department of Employment
of the City of New York. Alianza gave employee timesheets
which had been approved by Rodriguez to the Department of
Employment, and the City then cut the checks and gave them
to Alianza for distribution to the summer employees. Alianza
had the power to fire the summer employees if it deemed it
expedient to do so and Rodriguez fired at least one summer
youth employee.
Rodriguez was a member of the steering committee from
its inception. Indeed, Rodriguez served on the planning com-
mittee that developed the steering committee structure.
Rodriguez participated actively in the steering committee and
voted on such issues as changes to employee job descriptions
on October 29, 1993, the adoption of a method of employee
evaluation and specific employee evaluation forms on March
4, 1994, and the ongoing discussion of an employee health
plan in 1994. Rodriguez was active in steering committee
discussions of new programs which were proposed for
Alianza. The steering committee was intimately involved in
questions of hiring and firing and Rodriguez was active on
these matters as well. When the steering committee debated
hiring new employees for the Family Center, Rodriguez ob-
jected to the proposed hiring of Bonita Perez and she was
not hired. When Executive Director Perez proposed firing
employee Ricardo Rainua for making an inappropriate state-
ment in a parent meeting, Rodriguez fought in the steering
committee for Rainua to be placed on probation and the
steering committee overruled Perez and supported Rodriguez’
position that Rainua be given probation. After Rainua was
involved in another incident, the steering committee decided
to fire him. On various occasions, Rodriguez brought dis-
ciplinary issues to the steering committee and asked that ac-
tion be taken. She recommended that employee Jose Duran
of the La Plaza program staff be fired and he was terminated
in 1993.6 Rodriguez was an extremely influential and power-
ful figure at Alianza.
Perez testified that from the first, Rodriguez was a difficult
employee. She had personality conflicts with people she
came into contact with on a day to day basis and she did
not exercise good judgment. Early in Rodriguez’ employ-
ment, a client Rodriguez was working with manifested seri-
ous psychiatric symptoms and Perez called emergency per-
sonnel who eventually committed the client to the New York
Psychiatric Institute. Perez and Rodriguez attended a meeting
called by the Institute to discuss the client’s placement, and
when they walked into the room, they were shocked to see
that Rodriguez’ daughter was in attendance. Rodriguez and
her daughter then proceeded to trade accusations about the
young man’s affections and about witchcraft. Perez testified
that he was horrified, and that later when he counseled
Rodriguez about the inappropriateness of her actions
Rodriguez refused to acknowledge that she had made any
mistakes in her handling of the situation. Although members
of the steering committee told Perez to fire Rodriguez, he did
not. Perez explained that Rodriguez was a force in the com-
munity and had long been a recognized activist on behalf of
immigration rights. She was active in many other organiza-
tions and she was influential in the community. In 1994, Su-
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00989 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
990 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7 Nunez was the director of programs and clinical personnel at the
time of the instant hearing. She was a particularly reliable witness
with a good recollection and an impressive demeanor while testify-
ing.
8 The letter is dated July 29, 1994, but it contains a postscript
dated July 30; the record is not clear when the letter was actually
sent.
pervisor Jocelyn Aponte complained to Perez that Rodriguez
was spreading rumors about her sexual orientation. Aponte
and Rodriguez had been friends but now Aponte asked Perez
to tell Rodriguez to stop discussing Aponte at work. Various
members of the steering committee told Perez that Rodriguez
took up too much time at meetings with her own personal
complaints and that she was disruptive and created conflict
without producing for Alianza. In 1993, Director of Person-
nel Ramos told Perez to fire Rodriguez. Angelo Alonso, the
director of operations, complained to Perez that Rodriguez
held him personally responsible for every problem with the
health plan that was adopted by Alianza and he asked that
Perez fire Rodriguez for putting unnecessary pressure on him
and being disruptive. When Perez spoke to Rodriguez about
this, Rodriguez accused Alonso of spying within the agency
for the FBI. Sandino Sanchez, a member of the steering com-
mittee, told Perez to fire Rodriguez because she complained
about Sanchez and undermined him with his own staff.
Director of Administration Saltini testified that he had
twice recommended that Perez terminate Rodriguez before
1994. Although Rodriguez made a contribution to Alianza,
she was disruptive and in 1993 and 1994 it seemed to him
that there were more and more instances in which she caused
controversy. She meddled in the affairs of other program di-
rectors, trying to get their employees fired and accusing var-
ious people of dealing drugs. When she did not agree with
a decision she sought to subvert the process instead of going
along with the consensus. Marienela Nunez, was a supervisor
in the family assistance program in June, 1993.7 Nunez testi-
fied that Rodriguez was highly controversial. She had tre-
mendous influence in the agency because she was very ar-
ticulate and very assertive. Nunez tried to keep away from
her in order to avoid conflict, but Rodriguez precipitated one
confrontation by criticizing Nunez’ staff and questioning the
service provided to an Alianza client. Rodriguez based her
statements, which called for the termination of two of
Nunez’ staff members on information that was not current
and adequate. Nunez complained to Perez and asked him to
instruct Rodriguez not to meddle in the day to day operation
of the program.
Perez acknowledged that he had make a mistake in not fir-
ing Rodriguez, but he believed that if she were terminated
there would be an uproar because she was so vocal and it
would be distracting to the agency.
Rodriguez testified that the reorganization of Alianza and
the concept of service integration were major topics of dis-
cussion at steering committee and were very important to the
future and growth of the agency. The annual retreat held in
the summer of 1994 was to be devoted to a discussion of
service integration. Rodriguez testified that she did not attend
the retreat and she did not inform Perez that she planned to
absent herself. Rodriguez did not offer any reason for failing
to attend the retreat.
Perez testified that on July 28 while he was at the retreat
location, he received a message from a staff member stating
that Rodriguez would not be attending the retreat. Perez tried
to contact Rodriguez and eventually he spoke to her by tele-
phone on July 29. Rodriguez told Perez that she had serious
disagreements with him and would not attend the retreat.
Perez replied that the retreat had been planned for a long
time and that it was unfair for Rodriguez to withdraw at the
last minute and that she was insubordinate. Rodriguez said
she was not attending the meeting and that if Perez wanted
war, then she was waging war on him. Perez told Rodriguez
that she was suspended and that she should stay away from
the premises of Alianza until he returned from the retreat and
could speak to her further. After this conversation, Rodriguez
was discussed for an entire afternoon at the retreat and on
July 30 the steering committee reached a consensus decision
to discharge Rodriguez. Many of the members of the steering
committee recommended to Perez that Rodriguez should be
fired for her failure to attend the retreat. For example, Saltini
testified that he told Perez to fire Rodriguez. Saltini reasoned
that the purpose of the retreat was to evaluate the new serv-
ice integration program, the retreat had been worked on for
a long time, it was very costly and attendance was manda-
tory for program directors and supervisors. Saltini advised
Perez to discharge Rodriguez based on a history of poor per-
formance and for her insubordination in failing to attend the
retreat. Nunez also testified that she told Perez to fire
Rodriguez for insubordination in absenting herself from the
1994 retreat.
When Perez returned to Alianza’s premises after the re-
treat, he received a copy of a letter from Rodriguez to Rafael
Lantigua, M.D., the Chairman of the board of directors of the
Respondent.8 The heading on the letter indicates that it con-
cerns discrimination, abuse of power and sexual harassment
at Alianza. The letter sets forth Rodriguez’ community serv-
ice in the area of immigration rights since 1979 and states
that Rodriguez has been discriminated against on the basis of
sex. The letter accuses Perez of refusing to promote
Rodriguez because of her gender and of failing to take action
when staff members interfered with her correspondence,
faxes, telephone calls, messages, meetings, and grants. The
letter states that Perez refused Rodriguez’ requests for expan-
sion and more staff and that Perez engaged in abuse of
power and psychological pressure. On the issue of sexual
harassment, Rodriguez reserves specific examples for ‘‘the
right time and place.’’ The letter states that Rodriguez re-
ported her complaint to an equal employment opportunity
agency (without specifying which jurisdiction), but that she
did not sign a complaint pending a meeting with the board
of directors. The letter demands a meeting with the board
members and staff of Alianza. If this condition is not met,
the letter states, Rodriguez will make her complaint public
so that the community and the government may decide the
future of Alianza. The letter states that Rodriguez ‘‘seeks the
formation of a body to represent the rights of the staff at
Alianza regarless (sic), hence an union,’’ and that ‘‘Democ-
racy implies that the people decide who their leaders are
going to be.’’
Perez testified that even though Rodriguez’ discharge had
been decided upon by the steering committee at the retreat,
he did not send Rodriguez official notification of her dis-
charge because she had requested a meeting with the board
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00990 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
991ALIANZA DOMINICANA
9 Some of Respondent’s employees are currently organized.
of directors as a form of appeal and the board had granted
her request.
After Perez informed Rodriguez that she was suspended
and that she should stay away from Alianza premises, Perez
received reports that Rodriguez continued to appear at agen-
cy locations and that she had been disruptive at an Alianza
public school location. As a result, Perez decided that the
suspension had to be put in writing. On August 10, a letter
from Director of Personnel Dulce Ramos was sent to
Rodriguez advising her that she was suspended with pay
until further notice. The letter informed Rodriguez that she
was not to visit agency facilities and that she was to suspend
communications with coworkers, clients, funding sources and
the community on Alianza business. Further, Rodriguez was
directed to submit a written report on her professional activi-
ties to insure that the agency could appropriately follow up
on the execution of her job responsibilities.
The meeting requested by Rodriguez was held on August
16; in addition to members of the board, it was attended by
Perez, Director of Personnel Ramos and Director of Admin-
istration Saltini. Rodriguez stated her complaints to the
Board and the Board listened, asked questions and then it de-
liberated. The Board decided to sustain Rodriguez’ suspen-
sion and to seek legal counsel before it made a decision how
to proceed. According to Perez, it took a while for Alianza
to obtain counsel on a pro bono basis. After Perez met with
legal counsel, Respondent decided to implement the decision
to terminate Rodriguez. A letter dated September 9, 1994, in-
formed Rodriguez of her termination as of that date for:
1. Poor work performance
2. Misconduct
3. Disruptive behavior
Perez testified that Rodriguez was terminated for her mis-
conduct in failing to attend the 1994 summer retreat, for her
disruptive behavior when, in violation of her suspension, she
continued to be present in facilities of the agency, and for
poor work performance in that while she was suspended she
sabotaged a workshop on immigration that Alianza had
scheduled by calling outside firms that were to perform pho-
tography and fingerprinting services and telling them not to
come to the workshop. Perez stated that Rodriguez was not
fired for any activities on behalf of the Union: she was fired
because she had become more disruptive in the agency and
she had made the unilateral decision not to attend the sum-
mer retreat.
Perez was aware that Rodriguez had made statements in
favor of bringing a union to Alianza in the past. Rodriguez
was concerned with deficiencies in the health insurance ben-
efits provided by Alianza and she was active in the search
for better benefits. Before a new health plan was selected by
Respondent, she called in Local 1199 to discuss its benefit
package. When a different health plan was selected,
Rodriguez was very critical of the plan and of the person
who had researched health plan options, and she told Perez
that this person was a government spy and she demanded
that Perez fire him. Perez recalled that in 1992 or 1993,
Rodriguez said that she was interested in organizing a union.
Perez replied that he did not believe that a union would guar-
antee resolution of the problems facing Alianza but that it
was up to Rodriguez. The coard chairman, Dr. Lantigua, told
Perez that Rodriguez had mentioned forming a union in 1992
and 1993 and that he had given Rodriguez the addresses and
telephone numbers of a few unions. Rodriguez testified that
in March, 1994, she spoke to Lantigua about briging a union
to Alianza; Lantigua told her that he would support an orga-
nizing drive. Perez denied that he had ever said that he
would fire anyone who supported a union.9
Raquel Ramos, a former supervisor and AIDP program di-
rector at Alianza testified that in May 1994, she held a meet-
ing at her apartment to discuss organizing a union. Rodriguez
and others were present and they decided to draft a contract.
This document, dated June 15, 1994, is entitled ‘‘Support
Group Pro Alianza Dominicana, Inc.’’ and it states that the
group seeks a union. The signers of the document, including
Raquel Ramos and Rodriguez, are named as the policy-
making body of the association and they promise to maintain
the confidentiality of all of their discussions. There is no evi-
dence that this document was disclosed to anyone before the
instant hearing. Ramos testified that on June 28, 1994, she
was in Perez’ office for a meeting. According to Ramos, dur-
ing this meeting Perez made the statement that, ‘‘if he ever
found out that employees of Alianza were organizing pro—
or to help him—pro or con him, that he will fire them imme-
diately, even it was Lantigua’s favorite.’’ Ramos did not ask
for an explanation of this statement, and in Ramos’ descrip-
tion of the entire conversation the statement appears totally
out of context. There is no evidence that Perez was aware
of the May 1994, meeting and he testified that he had not
seen the May contract before the instant hearing. It is not
clear what Perez was referring to in the statement attributed
to him by Ramos. I can only conclude that Ramos had an
incomplete recollection of what Perez actually said because,
standing alone, this phrase does not make sense. One is left
to wonder what is meant by the idea that employees would
be organizing pro or con Perez. Certainly, there is no men-
tion of a union in Raquel Ramos’ testimony about Perez’
comment. This statement is too unclear for me to give it any
weight.
Director of Administration Saltini testified that it was
known in 1992 that Rodriguez had wanted to bring in a
union to provide health care insurance for Alianza. At that
time, Perez told him that he did not think a union was nec-
essary but that if the employees wanted a union they would
take a vote and there would be a union at Alianza. Saltini
stated that Perez did not mention anything about Rodriguez
and union activity after 1992. Rodriguez did not keep it a
secret that she wanted to bring in a union: some program di-
rectors had told Saltini after 1992 that Rodriguez wanted to
speak to their employees about a union. Saltini thought that
someone had spoken about a union before the 1994 retreat;
he knew that there were union supporters among the employ-
ees because a person named Tomas spoke for 20 minutes in
favor of a union at a general staff meeting.
D. Iris Almanzar
Iris Almanzar testified that she was hired in January, 1994,
as a case manager for Alianza’s HOPE program; she was
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00991 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
992 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10 Almanzar was unable to recall what the acronym HOPE stands
for. The record shows that the program was entitled HOPE for ‘‘ho-
listic orientation and preventive education.’’
11 UCR stands for uniform case recording; it is a standard form
in social work.
discharged by Alianza on October 6, 1994.10 Almanzar re-
called that she was supposed to do some counseling, referrals
and advocacy for clients of the agency who were afflicted
with the HIV virus. Almanzar’s supervisor was Julio Dicent.
She worked from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. When she was hired,
Dicent informed Almanzar that she would be on probation
for 6 months. After 2 or 3 months in the HOPE program,
Almanzar was transferred to another program at her request
because she was unhappy with the lack of supervision and
structure at her initial position. Almanzar testified that she
was surprised at some of the job duties she had been ex-
pected to perform in the HOPE program, claiming that she
had not been informed of them before she was hired. Ac-
cording to Almanzar, Dicent had not prepared her for the
fact that because the HOPE program was new, she would
have to recruit clients through community outreach. Nor did
Almanzar recall being told that part of her duties would be
to distribute food to homebound AIDS patients. However,
Almanzar testified that she did help distribute the food.
Almanzar denied that she falsified her time sheets.
Julio Dicent, the HOPE program director, testified con-
cerning Almanzar’s brief tenure in his program. He recalled
that when he interviewed Almanzar he told her that the pro-
gram was new and community based and that her duties
would be very broad. She would have to conduct outreach
in the community to inform people and institutions about the
new service which was available. There would be a lot of
leg work and Almanzar would be working face to face with
people in the area. Dicent testified that Almanzar lived in the
community and that he expected her to be able to walk the
neighborhood with comfort and he remembered that she said
she wanted to ‘‘give back to her community.’’ Dicent was
disappointed that Almanzar’s writing was poor, that she left
confidential client notes in full view on his desk so that any-
one could see them and that her use of time was poor.
Almanzar spent too much time on personal telephone calls,
she was away from the office without accounting for her
time to Dicent, she was late for meetings and she was resist-
ant to delivering meals to clients’ homes. Dicent had to tell
her to fill out her timesheets more accurately. Other members
of the staff complained that they had to do her work because
she was not to be found.
Marienela Nunez was a supervisor for the family assist-
ance program when Almanzar worked for the HOPE pro-
gram. Nunez shared space with HOPE, and when Dicent was
out of the office Nunez was in charge of the HOPE employ-
ees. Nunez testified that she observed that Almanzar came to
the office at 11 and 11:30 a.m. Often she did not call and
she did not tell Nunez where she had been. Nunez stated that
she had to deliver food in Almanzar’s absence because
Almanzar had not made the appropriate arrangements. Once
the food spoiled before it could be delivered because Nunez
did not have sufficient staff present to make up for
Almanzar’s absence. Nunez was upset and she reported to
Dicent that Almanzar was not functioning properly.
On August 16, 1994, long after she had left the HOPE
program, Almanzar was given an evaluation by Dicent. The
evaluation was not favorable and Almanzar wrote a memo
disagreeing with its conclusions. Dicent testified that he did
not evaluate Almanzar until August 16 because that is when
he did all the evaluations for his staff. He acknowledged that
he had not discussed the evaluation with Almanzar before he
completed it even though the personnel policy calls for eval-
uations to be made with the knowledge and participation of
employees. In early September, at Almanzar’s request, he
met with her and Personnel Director Ramos to discuss the
evaluation. Almanzar was irate and argumentative. Ramos
testified that after Almanzar told Dicent that she believed she
was a good worker, Dicent began to talk but Almanzar
would not listen to what he had to say, calling him a liar
and screaming. When the screaming became too loud, Ramos
ended the meeting.
In late winter 1994, Almanzar transferred to the CREO
program where Milagros Batista, the Program Director of
CREO, acted as Almanzar’s direct supervisor until a perma-
nent supervisor was hired. Batista informed Almanzar that
she would be subject to a new probationary period of 6
months. Almanzar was unable to recall what the initials
CREO meant but she recalled that she was supposed to per-
form counseling, referral work, advocacy and home visits for
substance abusers. She escorted clients to family court and
public assistance facilities and helped them to obtain entitle-
ment money. When asked what a UCR was, Almanzar could
not recall but stated that it was a method for recording client
progress11
In June, Miguelina Espiritu was hired as the permanent su-
pervisor for the CREO program and the employees soon be-
came discontented with her. According to Almanzar, the
workers told Guadalupe Rodriguez of their discontent and
she told them about ‘‘unionizing.’’ Almanzar recalled that
she signed a petition concerning problems that workers were
having with Espiritu. She testified that on August 1, after the
petition was signed, Espiritu told her that an attorney was
speaking to her and told Almanzar to think about what she
was doing because she would lose her job and get into a lot
of trouble. Espiritu also told Almanzar that she knew
Almanzar was part of the Union, that she would be in a lot
of trouble and that Almanzar should stop what she was
doing. According to Almanzar, she replied that she did not
know what Batista was talking about but that if there was
a union she had the right to join it. Almanzar testified that
she wrote a memorandum responding to the ‘‘constant ques-
tioning’’ of Espiritu about the Union. The document written
by Almanzar on August 4 and purporting to refer to this in-
terrogation does not mention the Union at all or indeed any
interrogation. Rather it seems to refer to some internecine of-
fice dispute involving charges of slander. Almanzar ex-
plained that Espiritu had experienced some problems at a
previous place of employment and that people were spread-
ing negative information about this throughout the agency.
Espiritu threatened to sue Almanzar for defamation and
Almanzar in the memo then threatened to sue Espiritu for
harassment. Almanzar sent copies of the memo to Perez,
Batista and Personnel Director Ramos and requested a meet-
ing to discuss the problem.
According to Almanzar, a union was discussed when
Raquel Ramos, the AIDP Program Director, was suspended.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00992 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
993ALIANZA DOMINICANA
A number of employees, including Almanzar, signed a peti-
tion to Perez dated July 29, 1994, requesting that he revoke
the suspension. Almanzar did not explain why Ramos had
been suspended. The petition itself is unclear and it only
mentions that Ramos visited various departments and used
certain exercise classes. Ramos testified but did not elaborate
on her suspension or termination except to state that she had
been suspended on August 10 and terminated on September
9, 1994.
Almanzar signed the union authorization petition on Au-
gust 10, 1994.
Almanzar recalled that Espiritu discussed a job evaluation
with her and showed her a document dated September 6,
1994. The written evaluation was not signed and Espiritu
told Almanzar that the evaluation was not official until it was
discussed with and signed by the Program Director, Milagros
Batista. In fact, Espiritu told Almanzar, Batista should have
filled in the form initially because she had had a longer op-
portunity to observe Almanzar than Espiritu who had only
arrived 3 months ago. The unsigned evaluation rated
Almanzar either satisfactory or excellent in various cat-
egories and gave her the overall rating of ‘‘Satisfactory,
Meets Job Requirements.’’ The evaluation was never signed
or approved by Batista. Almanzar testified that after this con-
versation with Espiritu, Belinda Almonte, a client of hers
who was also employed as a receptionist by Alianza, showed
her a document that purported to be an evaluation. This eval-
uation was much less favorable. I did not admit the proffered
document because Almanzar could not authenticate it as the
same document shown to her by Almonte and it had not
been produced from Respondent’s files. Both Batista and
Personnel Director Ramos stated that they had never seen
this purported evaluation.
Almanzar testified that at the end of September, Batista
told her that she had changed some of the items in Espiritu’s
evaluation because Almanzar’s actual performance was not
as good as had been indicated in the evaluation. During this
conversation, according to Almanzar, Batista asked her if she
knew anything that was going on in the Union. Almanzar
said she did not know what Batista was talking about and
Batista replied, ‘‘I know you are involved in the Union.’’
Almanzar’s affidavit given to the Regional Office on October
14, 1994, states, ‘‘No one from management ever asked me
about my union activities from when I first started attending
union meetings about August 1 through my discharge Octo-
ber 6.’’ When questioned why, one week after she was fired,
Almanzar did not tell the government that she had been in-
terrogated by two different managers about her union activi-
ties, Almanzar said she was too upset.
Batista stated that she had directed Espiritu to change
Almanzar’s evaluation because Espiritu had not accurately
reflected Almanzar’s job performance. Batista explained that
she had more opportunity to observe Almanzar’s perform-
ance directly than Espiritu who only supervised her for a
short while. The personnel procedures call for an employee
and a supervisor to agree on an evaluation, but Batista never
got a corrected evaluation for Almanzar from Espiritu.
Almanzar described an incident when she was criticized
by Batista for not informing a client that she could be sup-
plied with coats and shoes and socks for her children. The
client had missed an important meeting with city public as-
sistance workers because her children did not have the proper
clothes. Almanzar testified that she did not know that the
children did not have clothing to wear.
On another occasion, one of Almanzar’s clients had re-
peatedly failed to attend a substance abuse program for
which she was enrolled at Alianza. A New York City child
welfare administration worker who had been looking for this
client called Almanzar to ask about her. Almanzar told the
child welfare worker that the client was not attending the
substance abuse program and that she had not seen the client
in weeks. A few days or weeks later, the client appeared in
Alianza’s office and angrily asked Almanzar why she had in-
formed the child welfare worker that she was not attending
the program. Almanzar explained that she could not lie to the
City welfare worker. The client became more upset and
began yelling and screaming. Almanzar testified that she be-
came frightened and as the client walked away Almanzar
raised her voice to the client and said that she would not de-
scend to the client’s level. Other employees of Alianza wit-
nessed this scene and informed Batista that Almanzar had be-
haved inappropriately to the client. Although Almanzar told
Batista her version of the events, Batista believed the other
workers. Almanzar denied that she had screamed at drug
treatment Supervisor Rena Hernandez, one of the employees
who informed Batista of her behavior to the client. Yet
Almanzar’s affidavit states that she ‘‘raised [her] voice and
told Hernandez to stop lying.’’ Almanzar’s affidavit is con-
firmed by Batista who testified that Rena Hernandez had in-
formed her that Almanzar had insulted a client. When Batista
and Hernandez met with Almanzar concerning the incident
Almanzar yelled at Hernandez, interrupting her and calling
her a liar.
Almanzar testified that she was supposed to conduct group
sessions for clients in the CREO program and that she had
conducted one such session. She denied that Batista repeat-
edly asked her to run these groups. One day, according to
Almanzar, Batista had directed her to conduct a group ses-
sion. Because Almanzar was on the telephone to another cli-
ent, a coworker gathered the clients together and led the
group session until Almanzar came in 15 minutes later.
Almanzar testified that she ended the group session one hour
early because the clients and the coworker reported that
Batista said that they should leave early. Almanzar denied
that Batista was angry that the session ended early and she
denied that she was fired by Batista for ending the session
1 hour earlier than scheduled.
Almanzar denied that Batista ever counseled her or rep-
rimanded her about her job performance. She denied that she
had been reprimanded for signing in on her timesheet for
days when she had been absent. She denied that Batista
counseled her for lateness or for failure to maintain her case
files.
Batista testified that Almanzar’s timesheets were not accu-
rate. Batista noticed that Almanzar signed her timesheet as
present for a day when she was actually absent and that the
timesheets did not accurately reflect the time Almanzar ar-
rived for work. The documentary evidence shows that
Almanzar’s timesheets had indeed been corrected on more
than one occasion.
Batista testified that the purpose of the CREO program
was to provide drug treatment programs and preventive work
for the purpose of keeping families together and preventing
children from being placed in foster care. When Almanzar
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00993 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
994 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12 Salcedo often visited Urbaez at home. 13 Salcedo testified that Lantigua was in favor of the Union.
was hired for the CREO program, Batista told her that her
job was to provide case management for preventive services.
This meant that Almanzar was to be part of a team and com-
municate with preventive workers and drug treatment work-
ers. Communication and writing were important in order to
maintain documents and a case log for the entire family and
in order to provide the detailed information required by gov-
ernment agencies. Batista recalled that when one of Alianza’s
funding agencies conducted an audit, she was shocked that
Almanzar apparently did not know what should be in a case
record, that she had not done an assessment of the families
she was responsible for and that she did not know how to
complete the UCR forms showing what the clients’ needs
were and the agency goals for the client. Batista assigned an-
other employee to help Almanzar correct and rewrite all of
her case notes. Batista testified that Almanzar’s clients did
not attend the programs they were enrolled in and did not
seem engaged in the aims of the agency. As a result, Batista
was obliged to go with Almanzar on a home visit in order
to get the clients back into the program. Batista described a
case assigned to Almanzar where the children were being en-
dangered. The person with legal custody of the children,
(their grandmother), was in the hospital and the mother was
on drugs. Almanzar had known that the grandmother was in
the hospital but she had not done anything to assure the chil-
dren’s safety. Batista arranged to get public assistance for the
mother and admitted her into a program so that she could be-
come drug free and care for her children.
Batista faulted Almanzar for not conducting group sessions
for her clients. A supervisor gave Almanzar guidance on how
to conduct a group but the supervisor later informed Batista
that Almanzar was still refusing to conduct groups. Batista
decided to pay close attention to a group that Almanzar was
to conduct on October 6, 1994, at 1 p.m. Batista had checked
with Almanzar that day and told her to be ready. At 1 p.m.,
Batista saw that the group participants were there but that
Almanzar was not present. Almanzar walked by at 1:20 on
the way to the group and then at 1:30 Batista saw Almanzar
leaving for lunch. The session should have gone on until 2
p.m. Batista testified that she spoke to Director of Personnel
Dulce Ramos and Executive Director Perez, and that she
made the decision to fire Almanzar as a result of the October
6 incident with the group session where Almanzar did not
follow her instructions. Almanzar was at the end of her pro-
bationary period. Batista believed that Alianza was taking too
many risks in continuing to employ Almanzar as a case
worker. Batista testified that she did not know that Almanzar
was involved in any Union activities and she denied ever
questioning Almanzar about the Union. Batista was aware
that Almanzar was one of the employees who signed several
petitions concerning the CREO program, but none of these
mentioned a union.
E. Cecilia Salcedo
Cecilia Salcedo began work on November 28, 1994 in the
AIDP program for children on probation . Salcedo’s friend,
AIDP Program Director Yaniris Urbaez, arranged for Salcedo
to be hired.12 Although Salcedo possessed only a high school
diploma and had applied for a position as a receptionist or
secretary, Urbaez got her a job as a family case worker.
Salcedo conceded that she did not have the training to docu-
ment her activities as required by Alianza’s record keeping
methods. Salcedo’s direct supervisor was Jocelyn Aponte.
Salcedo testified to an indecipherable spy plot which
began on December 8, not even 2 weeks after she was hired.
The outline of her testimony was to the effect that Urbaez
asked her to spy on the Union and to keep an eye on her
coworker Eladio Hernandez, a suspected union supporter.
According to Salcedo, Urbaez asked her to find out where
a union meeting was to be held and promised her $3000 and
job security if she complied. Salcedo testified that she re-
fused to be a spy because Aponte and Eladio Hernandez did
not get along and Aponte had told her to stay away from
Eladio. But Urbaez insisted, telling Salcedo to ignore Aponte
and to pretend that she was from the Union. Salcedo then
began speaking to Eladio, and Urbaez kept pressing her for
news of the Union. One week later, Aponte accused Salcedo
of being a spy for the Union. There was a confrontation in
Urbaez’ office involving Aponte and Salcedo. Sometime
later, something went wrong with Aponte that embarrassed
Salcedo. According to Salcedo, on May 16, she spoke to
Board Chairman Dr. Lantigua after a meeting and told him
that Aponte had harassed, attacked and abused her and that
Urbaez had promised her $3000. This was Salcedo’s entire
recollection of her conversation with Lantigua until Counsel
for the General Counsel led her to testify that she told
Lantigua about the Union. Lantigua told Salcedo that it was
not good for Alianza for her to spy and told her not to worry
about her job.13 Salcedo said that right after this she received
a disciplinary memo from Aponte accusing her of neg-
ligence.
Salcedo received an evaluation signed by Urbaez dated
February 28, 1995. The evaluation rated her ‘‘Good’’ in
some areas and ‘‘Improvement Needed’’ in many areas relat-
ed to record keeping and planning for clients’ needs. Salcedo
did not agree with this evaluation, but she testified that she
signed it because Urbaez said that she would change it.
However, the evaluation was not changed. On cross-exam-
ination, Salcedo resisted admitting that Urbaez had person-
ally written unfavorable comments on the evaluation con-
cerning record keeping and documentation, and she would
not concede that Urbaez had written that Salcedo and Aponte
had problems and that Salcedo had been told to abide by
Aponte’s directives.
Salcedo testified that she had a problem getting along with
Aponte and that she began speaking with Eladio Hernandez
contrary to Aponte’s wishes. Salcedo argued with Aponte
constantly, and Urbaez told Salcedo that Aponte had accused
her of hanging up the telephone on Aponte. Salcedo ascribed
all of these disagreements to the fact that she was pretending
to be in the Union so that she could talk to Eladio Hernandez
and be a spy. However, Salcedo also testified that she had
stress on the job because she was caught between two people
who hated each other and were fighting for power, namely
Urbaez and Aponte, and she was ‘‘getting crazy’’ because
she was in the middle.
Salcedo recalled that Perez met with the AIDP workers
and told them that their record keeping had to improve dra-
matically. United Way, the funding source for the drop-out
prevention program, had reviewed the case files and had
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00994 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
995ALIANZA DOMINICANA
14 Urbaez is no longer employed by Respondent.
warned Alianza that if record keeping did not improve the
funding was in jeopardy. Perez told the employees that they
had to concentrate all their efforts on getting the case files
in shape. Both Perez’ testimony, which I credit, and the doc-
umentary evidence show that United Way had found serious
problems with record keeping in the program in the Winter
and Spring of 1995, and had threatened to end the funding
unless the problems were corrected. Perez took personal
charge of the program and reviewed the student file folders
at each school. Perez testified that when he reviewed the stu-
dent charts prepared by Salcedo he found that they were of
such poor quality that he could not make any sense of them.
He characterized Salcedo’s record keeping as ‘‘atrocious.’’
Perez decided that the problems in the AIDP program
stemmed from ineffective supervision and a lack of skills
among the staff. As a result of his conclusions, Program Di-
rector Urbaez was replaced and Supervisor Aponte was de-
moted.14 Perez had seen Salcedo’s evaluation and he had
seen a memorandum stating that Salcedo was belligerent to
her immediate supervisor and resisted supervision. Perez,
who made the decisions concerning hiring in the AIDP pro-
gram for the new school year, stated that he decided not to
rehire Salcedo for the new school year because she had not
improved her performance after being urged to do so and her
skill levels were low. Perez did not believe that Salcedo was
able to improve.
Salcedo testified that on the last day of school, June 30,
1995, Urbaez told her that she ‘‘had the job’’ but that she
should collect unemployment insurance for 3 months. How-
ever, Salcedo conceded that all the employees in the AIDP
program had to reapply for their jobs. After Salcedo re-
applied, she had an interview with Personnel Director Ramos
who told her that her evaluation was not good. Salcedo re-
plied that Urbaez had promised to change the evaluation.
Salcedo was not rehired for the new school year. Ramos tes-
tified that Salcedo was not rehired because of her poor per-
formance.
Perez testified that he had never been informed that
Salcedo engaged in any activity on behalf of the Union. He
recalled that Urbaez informed him in Spring 1995 that
Salcedo had approached her and offered to spy on the Union.
Urbaez was offended because she had been a shop steward
in her previous place of employment and she told Salcedo
not to make such a suggestion. Salcedo never told Perez that
anyone asked her to spy on the Union. In May 1995,
Lantigua called Perez and informed him that Salcedo said
that Urbaez asked her to spy on the Union. He checked again
with Urbaez to make sure this was not so.
When Salcedo learned that she had not been rehired, she
signed a charge alleging that she was discharged because the
Respondent believed that she was active in the Union. The
record is clear that Salcedo never engaged in any Union ac-
tivity at all. After filing her charge Salcedo gave four affida-
vits to the Regional Office. The first two affidavits do not
mention anything about Urbaez asking her to spy for the
Union. Instead they say that Aponte accused Salcedo of spy-
ing for Urbaez. These affidavits represent the truth behind
some of Salcedo’s difficulties at Alianza. Salcedo was a per-
sonal friend of Urbaez, Aponte and Urbaez were at each oth-
er’s throats and Salcedo, in her own words, was caught in
the middle between two people fighting for power. After giv-
ing these two affidavits, Salcedo’s charge was dismissed by
the Regional Office and she went to the Union for advice.
Then, Salcedo for the first time gave an affidavit that men-
tioned the Union and provided the basis for a finding that
she had been unlawfully denied reemployment. Salcedo’s ex-
planation for failing to mention the Union in the two affida-
vits she gave right after she filed a charge was that she was
afraid to tell her whole story because she thought that Re-
spondent might still give her back her job. Of course, the af-
fidavit was confidential and Salcedo had no reason to imag-
ine that a Regional Office agent would wrongfully disclose
it to Respondent.
F. Discussion and Conclusions
As set forth above, I shall not rely on Rodriguez’ testi-
mony. Based on the credited testimony of Perez, Sandino
Sanchez and Marlon Guerrero, I find that as Director of Im-
migration Services, Rodriguez hired employee Kares Alva-
rado and the supervisors of the summer youth workers, had
the authority to and did fire supervisors in the program, in-
structed and trained the immigration staff workers and as-
signed tasks to and directed the work of all the immigration
workers. I find that Rodriguez was a supervisor within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Further, based on the
credited testimony of Perez, Raymond Saltini and Marienela
Nunez, I find that as a member of the steering committee,
Rodriguez set policies for the agency; she made decisions
concerning the adoption of new programs and the ongoing
administration of agency programs and operations, she for-
mulated personnel policies and employee evaluation policies,
she voted on employee health plans and on matters concern-
ing the hiring and firing of employees, and she decided
which budget lines would be eliminated and which employ-
ees should be laid off in response to diminished funding. I
conclude that Rodriguez was a managerial employee who
was ‘‘involved in developing and enforcing employer pol-
icy.’’ NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672, 682 (1980).
Rodriguez thus had no protected right Under the Act to en-
gage in activities on behalf of the Union, and management
had a right to expect her undivided loyalty.
Moreover, I find that Rodriguez’ known position in favor
of a union and her activities on behalf of the Union herein
did not play any part in her discharge. First, there is no cred-
ible evidence of antiunion animus on the part of Respondent.
Second, the testimony of Perez, Ramos, Nunez and Saltini
shows that Rodriguez had been a disruptive employee whose
position as an activist in the community had protected her
from the consequences of her behavior. During the course of
Rodriguez’ tenure at Alianza, Perez had been advised to dis-
charge Rodriguez by Ramos, Saltini, Alonso, and Sanchez
but he had refrained from taking this step because he feared
the turmoil that would ensue. Finally, when Rodriguez in-
formed Perez by telephone on July 29 that she would not
come to the retreat because she had serious disagreements
with him, he replied that her behavior was insubordinate and
that she was suspended. Perez told Rodriguez that he would
speak to her when he returned from the retreat and that in
the meantime she should stay away from Alianza’s premises.
Perez, Saltini and Nunez testified convincingly that
Rodriguez’ failure to attend the retreat was extensively dis-
cussed and that the decision was made by the steering com-
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00995 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
996 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mittee on July 30 that Rodriguez should be discharged for
her absence from this important and long planned meeting.
Rodriguez’ letter to Lantigua contains a post script stating
that she had been informed that she was terminated thus
demonstrating that Rodriguez had her sources within the
steering committee who told her of the decision that had
been reached. The decision was not implemented because
Rodriguez asked for a meeting with the Board of directors,
and after the Board upheld the decision to discharge
Rodriguez, it took some time for Alianza to obtain pro bono
legal counsel. Thus, it was not until September 9 that
Rodriguez was given formal notification that she was fired.
Although Rodriguez had made sporadic comments over the
years to the effect that she wanted to bring a union to
Alianza, Rodriguez did not communicate with the Union
herein until after she had been informed that the steering
committee had decided during the retreat that she should be
discharged. Larancuent testified that when Rodriguez tele-
phoned him to talk about organizing she said that she was
being discharged. On the same day, Rodriguez drafted her
letter to Lantigua asserting her complaints of gender dis-
crimination, abuse of power and psychological pressure and
stating that she would seek the formation of a union. Thus,
Rodriguez’ support for the Union herein did not begin until
after she learned that the steering committee had decided to
terminate her. Although the Board of Directors later affirmed
this decision, there is no evidence that the Board’s action re-
lated to Rodriguez’ signing of a Union card or petition. In-
deed, all of the evidence shows that Chairman of the Board
Lantigua was in favor of a union; Salcedo testified that
Lantigua had expressed support for a union and Rodriguez
recalled that 3 months before she was discharged, Lantigua
had promised support for a union organizing drive at
Alianza.
The General Counsel urges that the timing of Rodriguez’
formal termination letter shows that she was discharged for
filing a charge in violation of Section 8 (a) (4). I have found
above that when Rodriguez told Perez that she was not com-
ing to the retreat, he responded that she was suspended. The
next day, July 30, 1994, the steering committee decided to
terminate Rodriguez. In the meantime, Perez received reports
that Rodriguez was continuing to appear at various Alianza
locations contrary to his instructions. A letter setting forth
the terms of Rodriguez’ suspension was sent to her on Au-
gust 10. No formal action to implement the steering commit-
tee’s decision could be taken until Rodriguez met with the
board of directors on August 16 pursuant to her request. That
day, the Board decided to uphold the steering committee and
it decided to retain counsel, a process which took several
weeks. In the meantime, the Union filed a charge alleging
that Rodriguez’ suspension was an unfair labor practice; the
charge was served on Respondent on August 22. The termi-
nation letter to Rodriguez was dated September 9, 1994. I
find that there is no evidence in the record to show that
Rodriguez was discharged because the Union filed a charge
relating to her suspension. The evidence shows that before
the Charge was served on Respondent, the directors had de-
cided that Rodriguez should be discharged in accordance
with the vote of the steering committee. Further, the evidence
is clear that the Chairman of the board supported the forma-
tion of a Union; he would hardly have permitted Alianza to
suspend Rodriguez in retaliation for her support of the Union
and then compound the retaliation by discharging her when
a charge was filed in response to the suspension.
As set forth above, I did not find Almanzar’s testimony
to be particularly reliable because she was unable to recall
important facts about her job and because her testimony is
contradicted by the documentary evidence. I credit the testi-
mony of Dicent and Batista that Almanzar’s timesheets were
not maintained accurately and that she claimed more working
hours than she actually performed. I credit Dicent and Nunez
that Almanzar shirked her duties at the HOPE program. I do
not credit Almanzar that on August 1, 1994, Espiritu ques-
tioned her about the Union and threatened that she would get
into a lot of trouble. The memorandum that Almanzar wrote
on August 4 protesting Espiritu’s words does not mention the
Union at all but refers to some quarrel involving Espiritu and
Almanzar related to Espiritu’s previous employment. If in-
deed Espiritu had questioned and threatened Almanzar on the
subject of the Union, Almanzar would have mentioned this
in a letter of complaint written 3 days later. I do not credit
Almanzar that Batista questioned her about the Union at the
end of September when the two were discussing Almanzar’s
evaluation. Batista credibly denied this allegation. Moreover,
Almanzar’s affidavit given on October 14, 1994, states that
she first began attending union meetings about August 1 and
that no one from management ever asked her about her union
activities before she was discharged on October 6. Almanzar
explained the discrepancy between her affidavit and her testi-
mony by saying that right after her discharge she was too
upset to recall incidents of interrogation. This explanation is
not worthy of belief: an employee filing a charge and provid-
ing an affidavit concerning a discriminatory discharge will
hardly deny the major incidents supporting her claim of dis-
crimination such as coercive questioning and threats about
union activities. I credit Batista that Almanzar did not know
how to keep her case records and that Almanzar did not
service her clients adequately. I credit Batista’s testimony,
which is confirmed by Almanzar’s own description of the in-
cident, that Almanzar spoke inappropriately to a client and
then yelled at a co-worker in a meeting called to discuss
Almanzar’s behavior. I credit Batista that Almanzar dis-
obeyed her instructions concerning the group session held on
October 6, 1994, and that this incident led directly to
Almanzar’s discharge. Thus, I do not find that Almanzar was
discharged for union activity nor that her evaluations were
lowered because Respondent believed that she supported the
Union.
Cecilia Salcedo did not engage in any activites at all on
behalf of the Union. Instead, General Counsel relies on
Salcedo’s testimony that she was pretending to be in the
Union at the direction of Program Director Urbaez and that
Supervisor Aponte then accused her of being a spy for the
Union. The scenario continues with Salcedo complaining to
Lantigua, who favored the Union, and Lantigua referring the
matter to Perez. The General Counsel alleges that Perez
made the decision not to rehire Salcedo because she com-
plained about being asked to spy on the Union and because
she refused to spy on the Union. As stated above, I do not
find that Salcedo is a credible witness. Based on the record
evidence, I find that Urbaez arranged to have Salcedo hired
despite the fact that Salcedo was not qualified to perform the
job of case worker. Salcedo had problems with her imme-
diate supervisor, Aponte, and she was caught in the middle
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00996 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
997ALIANZA DOMINICANA
15 One thing that is clear from the record is that Alianza’s employ-
ees were not shy about discussing their activities in favor of the
Union with board members, managers and supervisors; it strains cre-
dulity to suppose that Salcedo would be offered a large sum to pro-
vide information about the location of a union meeting.
18 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
of a long standing personal conflict between Urbaez and
Aponte which, in Salcedo’s own words, led to her ‘‘getting
crazy.’’ I find that Salcedo’s testimony is a mass of stories
made up to suit the exigencies of the situation. When
Salcedo discovered that her first two affidavits were not suf-
ficient to sustain her allegation that she was fired because
Respondent believed she was active in the Union, Salcedo
devised a story to fit a legal theory. I do not credit Salcedo
that she was asked to spy on the Union by Urbaez and prom-
ised $3000 for information.15 I find that Salcedo complained
to Lantigua that Aponte was harassing her and that Salcedo
told Lantigua a fabricated story about some intrigue relating
to $3000 and the Union. I find that Urbaez told Perez that
Salcedo offered to spy on the Union but that Urbaez assured
Perez on two different occasions that she had not asked
Salcedo to report on Union activities. I credit Perez that he
personally reviewed Salcedo’s work and found it below ac-
ceptable standards. I credit Perez that Salcedo was not re-
hired for the new school year because she was incompetent.
To sum up, there is no credible evidence that Respondent
harbored any antiunion animus and there is no credible evi-
dence that actual or purported activities in support of the
Union played any part in the dismissals of Rodriguez and
Almanzar and the failure to rehire Salcedo. Further, I find
that Rodriguez was a supervisor and manager of Respondent.
Finally, I find that there is no credible evidence that Re-
spondent interrogated employees about their support for the
Union.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended16
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00997 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.146 APPS10 PsN: APPS10