Opinion ID: 736859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: september 29, 1994, discharge

Text: 12 On September 29, 1994, Rivera was called to a meeting with three members of Holsum's management and read a final termination notice. The notice stated that he was being discharged because of his defamatory, insulting and false remarks about Holsum's products. This was a reference to statements Rivera had made to fellow employees to the effect that those products were poisonous; that he would not give them to his family; and that not even pigs will eat them. 13 According to Holsum, it first learned of these statements in August 1994 when one of its employees, Teresa Perez, advised its vice president for manufacturing, Julio E. Vigoreaux, that Rivera had made derogatory comments about the bakery's products. The company insists that it had immediately launched an investigation into the matter, which included the taking of affidavits from employees who had heard Rivera make the remarks; and that with this confirmation in hand, it proceeded to discharge him. On the basis of evidence presented to an administrative law judge (ALJ), however, the Board concluded that Holsum's stated reason for discharging Rivera was pretextual and that Rivera had actually been terminated because he was contemplating a renewed attempt to unionize the company. 14 That conclusion was based on the following findings of fact: In December 1993 or January 1994, Holsum learned that Rivera had charged that its products were poisonous and were unfit for his family or even for pigs. Seven or eight months later, in August 1994, Perez reported to the company that Rivera had described its products as unfit for both his family and pigs, but did not state that he had described them as poisonous; at the same time, she advised management that Rivera was considering the possibility of another union campaign. The Board noted that it was only then that Holsum launched the investigation that led to Rivera's dismissal. It reasoned that because the company had failed to take any disciplinary action following the earlier report that Rivera had made the more serious charge that its products were poisonous, it was the possibility of renewed union action, not Rivera's disparaging comments, that led Holsum to discharge him. Holsum Bakers, 320 N.L.R.B. at 834-37. 15 Whether Holsum's stated reason for discharging Rivera was pretextual turns on one basic question of fact: When did Holsum first learn that Rivera had described its products as poisonous? Holsum insists that it did not learn of these remarks until August 1994. The Board, however, maintains that Holsum had been advised of them no later than December 1993 or January 1994. 16 The relevant testimony was given by three employees: Carlos Hernandez, Mayra Rivera-Cabeza, and Perez. Hernandez testified that after the election, Rivera had repeatedly stated that he would not give Holsum products to his family because they had poison. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 206. When asked on cross-examination if he remembered when the election was held, Hernandez said that he thought it was around June or July of 1994. Tr. at 210-11. The election, hwoever, actually took place on September 23, 1993. Hernandez further testified that he reported Rivera's comments to his supervisors as soon as he first heard them. Tr. at 211-12. On re-direct examination, Hernandez asserted that the conversations he had with Rivera occurred around November 1994 (i.e., over a year after the election) or perhaps before. Tr. at 217-18. Hernandez then testified that the negative comments were made [i]n '94 when the elections were held, during the elections. Tr. at 218. Because of this confused testimony, the ALJ requested a copy of Hernandez's affidavit. The affidavit, which was sworn to on November 30, 1994, states, in part: 17 [Rivera] would speak to me about a union he wanted to bring to the company. The union lost. I had to pass by him as part of my work and he would make negative remarks about the products. He would tell me that he did not buy the products, he would not give them to to [sic] his family, not even his grandchildren, because they had poison and they would poison them.... He made that remark to me approximately six times.... The first time he said that to me was between June and July of this year. 18 Affidavit of Carlos Manuel Hernandez, reprinted in Appendix at 439 (marginalia corrections included). The affidavit also states that Hernandez reported Rivera's statements to his immediate supervisor, Angel T. Santiago, and to Jose Sanchez of Quality Control. Id. at 440. 19 Rivera-Cabeza testified that she heard Rivera state that that type of product could not even be given to pigs. And that anyone who were to eat that product could possibly [sic] him/herself. Tr. at 198. She claimed that Rivera began making these comments after the elections were lost in December 1993 to January 1994. Tr. at 200. Unlike Hernandez, Rivera-Cabeza did not report them to management. 20 Perez testified that on or about August 22, 1994, she told Vigoreaux that, during the prior month, Rivera had stated that he would not give Holsum products to his family, that they were garbage, and that even the pigs did not eat them, Tr. at 222; and that Rivera was talking about the possibility of another union campaign. Tr. at 161. Perez did not testify that Rivera had described the food as poisonous. 21 Based on the testimony of these three witnesses, the Board determined that Holsum was aware of Rivera's poison comments as early as December 1993. Holsum Bakers, 320 N.L.R.B. at 837. Although the Board accepted Perez's testimony that Rivera made additional negative comments about the products in July 1994, it concluded that the investigation of those comments and the subsequent discharge occurred because of her report that Rivera was discussing the possibility of another union campaign. Id. 22 We find that there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's conclusion. Although Hernandez was confused as to dates, his testimony was consistent with regard to two essential points: Rivera had charged that Holsum's products contained poison shortly after the election, and Hernandez had reported them to management as soon as he had heard them. Moreover, Hernandez's testimony linking Rivera's outbursts with the election was corroborated by Rivera-Cabeza and not contradicted by Perez, who merely discussed additional, somewhat milder comments that Rivera had made at a later date.