(Page 3 of 9)
A: Yeah, I believe it’s inappropriate. I think I should be able to make a neutral investigation and make a representation on my own observations while being a field examiner.
Q: Did you discuss this with [the regional director]?
Q: What was his answer?
A: Follow instructions and cooperate with the union.
Q: And was it your observation that cases were. . .assigned to field examiners based on the political or pro- UFW viewpoint of the field examiner? -
A: That's correct.
If a formal complaint of an unfair labor practice is filed by the ALRB against the employer, his attorneys have the right of discovery, that is, the right to see the specific charges and evidence against their client. But testimony from former ALRB agent Elias Munoz before the ALRB’S five-person Board last year went as follows:
Mr. Munoz: But when you’re talking about discovery before the General Counsel, for all practical purposes. . . the employer does not have discovery. It is routine practice, I know. . .you
prepare two files when you’re doing an investigation. You prepare the real file that you and the union look at, then you prepare the other file that respondent will eventually get when you go to hearing. And even with this other file, before you go to hearing, you make sure you have purged it.
Board Member Waldie: How do you know that, sir?
Mr. Munoz: Five and a half years with the Board, doing the very same thing.
Board Member Waldie: Did you do the things you’ve talked about?
Mr. Munoz: Yes, sir, that was policy.
Board Member Waldie: Did you produce manufactured witnesses [as you said earlier]?