Chapter 3. The Birth of the Union - 1980

January. Preparing for Union Vote & Charges of Racism.............. 110

February Employees Vote for Union.............................................. 131

March Union Elections & Acrimonious Annual Meeting................ 147

April Disenrollments & Grievances........................................... 158

May Class Action Suit & Interim Contract................................ 166

June Sluggish Negotiations & "Communication Committee"..... 170

July Anti-Union Tactics & Lay Offs.......................................... 177

August Grievances & No Negotiations.......................................... 203

September Information Picket Line & NLRB Ruling......................... 222

October Earnest Negotiations & Anniversary Party........................... 240

November Employees Ratify Contract ................................................ 250

December Board Rejects Contract...................................................... 255

Chapter 3. The Birth of the Union - 1980

January 1980 - Preparing for Union Vote & Charges of Racism

January 2, 1980

NHCEO Meeting

At this first NHCEO meeting of 1980, Bemis' letter of termination aroused anger and concern among the members present. Still, the first question dealt with the implications of Bemis' termination upon the Adolescent Clinic. The Adolescent Clinic program enjoyed an excellent reputation among many of El Rio's health care professionals. It dealt with teen pregnancy and sexual issues and it provided a safe haven for teens in trouble. We later learned that Bemis' termination would be the end of that Adolescent Clinic. Bemis had been let go under the euphemism of a "cut back." The termination of Bemis sparked talk at the NHCEO meeting about unionizing.

The next item on the agenda included a report from the Long Term Planning Committee which had been looking at unions. The committee presentation brought out new concepts and many questions.

...What is a bargaining unit?

...Who can be in a bargaining unit?

...How bargaining units are established?

...What could a bargaining unit do?

...Multiple bargaining units at a single business entity.

...What kinds of affiliations are possible?

...Being affiliated vs. being independent.

Barbara Warren, respected among the El Rio doctors, saw unionizing as the best way to go. She particularly liked the idea of a single bargaining unit with all the employees including the physicians included in that one bargaining unit. Josie Guerena, and perhaps others, did not understand Warren's position. Guerena thought that Warren just focused on the interests of the physicians. This had serious repercussions some years later when Guerena assumed a leadership position in the union. But in early January 1980, Warren, Kathy McGlone, a health educator, and possibly one other activist went shopping for a union and came back recommending the American, Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers Local 449.

Concluding the discussion was a motion ". . . to contact AFSCME, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, with the idea of seeking affiliation." The motion passed unanimously.

Job Terminations

Notice of job terminations claiming budgetary problems, but for what many employees saw as inappropriate firings, had gone out earlier to at least five employees including Bill Bemis. Two of the employees laid off included pediatrician Buchanan McKay and an internal medicine physician, Pacita Coss, a woman from the Philippine Islands. A strong outcry from Yaqui mothers and McKay's lack of involvement in any employee activity set the stage for his rehiring. Additionally, McKay had been in the military and so supported Vivian even to the point of agreeing about his layoff. Why Coss' employment was terminated and not rescinded is unknown. Her job termination probably emanated more for financial rather than political reasons. But NHSC physicians, looking at Coss' job termination, made the reasonable assumption that when they came to El Rio, a regular salaried physician was let go. The three other terminations appeared to be more politically motivated: they included Celina Robles, a subordinate of Sanchez, and a year later Jose Maltos followed by Bill Bemis. While Robles' termination clearly related to the pattern of events that was developing, she appeared first in that pattern and so it was difficult to understand, at that time, that this was a political termination. With Maltos and Bemis, the pattern became clear. Even if a detriment to the clinic, employees' jobs could capriciously disappear. Bill Bemis, at that time, was the only one who had been openly active in the NHCEO. That changed in 1980.

For the next six laid off, the political implications of their terminations could be clearly understood. The employees' attorney, Debra Hillary, claimed that the layoffs were not prompted by budgetary concerns but came as retaliations against the employees. In 1980, the political termination included five employees: Hugh Young, head of the Data Processing Department and NHCEO activist; Ava Wolfe, a pediatrician and also active in NHCEO; Leigh Roth, a certified nurse midwife and union activist; Bill Maytorena, social service supervisor, not active in either the NHCEO or union; and Gloria Monreal, social service worker loyal to her supervisor Maytorena and active member of the NHCEO. The excuse used for firing Young, but not believed by most employees, implied that it was cheaper to keep his subordinate. This would have significant adverse consequence on the clinic in the long run. Maytorena's job loss demonstrated possible blatant favoritism. Mejia, it was believed, wanted to give the position to a friend. Maytorena had been the first patient advocate at El Rio before becoming the Director of the Social Services Department. His job termination sometime around the early to mid 1980 resulted in the loss of some precious resources. Monreal's work on behalf of the NHCEO also caused the loss of her job. Monreal had worked for Baldenegro before. At one point she offered to phone Baldenegro on behalf of the NHCEO. Shortly after that phone call, the termination of her employment occurred.

Reece believed that because several employees who had spoken out also lost their jobs, that this added to the employees' fears. Excuses for terminating employees were often not believed.

With the terminations, increased interest in unionization among the other employees began. In a paper for a university class Mary Lou Gonzales wrote:

"... members of the NHCEO felt they had used all constructive means available to get their rights reinstated by the Board . . . This move by management and the Board was indeed seen as punitive. This measure involved layoffs and firing . . . In the January 2, 1980 [NHCEO] meeting . . . Focus of concern involved job security and what can be done to maximize security."

Still management persisted in their argument that economics caused the layoffs. Gonzales recalled that when management received a $530,000 contract they did indeed call some employees back. But at this time, El Rio rehired none of the employees who had been active in the NHCEO or the union.

Within the next months, employees who lost their jobs often became seen as causalities of conflicts involving either the board or administration. Many had not been involved with the NHCEO but, on their own, had been critical of the board's actions.

Only Bemis, Monreal, and Wolfe had been openly active in the NHCEO.

Patton would be sworn in at court and had to tell the truth. Patton's testimony showed her loyalty to Maltos at the court hearing and thus not valued by the new administration.

Except for Dr. Wolfe, the other two physicians had not been active in NHCEO and employees did not know why they lost their jobs. But most of the employees, at the time, generally did not believe the terminations warranted.

Only Leigh Roth had joined the union and successfully filed and won a case against El Rio.

Maytorena had tried to establish a good relationship with members of the board work for a long time--longer than necessary in another employee's view. Basically, he tried to survive and failed.

Monreal was probably terminated because she was loyal to both Maytorena and to the employee group. Baldenegro knew about these loyalties.

The rationale for Hugh Young's termination, based on the concept that it was cheaper to keep his subordinate, did not have credence among most employees. Some employees believed that this termination caused serious harm to the future of the clinic because Young's expertise in data management would be sorely needed.

Yolando Coronado, a licensed practical nurse (LPN) working in Suite 1, the same suite as Sanchez, thought that if the doctors could be fired so easily, it could be so easy for the El Rio administration to fire us. Therefore, the union became perceived as protection against arbitrary job termination. Coronado remembered co-workers joking that they had better be careful or they

might find their pink slip in their box without explanation and it would not be necessary to document poor patient care.

Warren saw the firing of employees as based upon political motives. She believed that management, under the guise of budgetary concerns, laid off people. When Bemis lost his job, Warren joined the Long Term Planning Committee set up to shop for a union. She became instrumental in advocating for AFSCME.

Elenez believed that Warren served as the chief one influencing the doctors to go with the union. Elenez continued,

"Still it did not interfere with her work. Warren was the one making it fun for us. Warren was one physician that really got involved."

January 3, 1980

Memo to All Staff from Mejia regarding "Unfinished Discussions about 1980 Budget from General Staff Meeting and Other Matters"

"Other Matters:

I had intended to cover a discussion about the state of affairs relative to our financial standing for 1980 during the General Staff Meeting, Friday, December 28, 1979. Many other concerns came up reflecting on past practices and on reactions to anticipated management changes. I feel that while the discussion was lively, it may not have been useful considering that the content of the meeting was in reaction to things that have taken place in the past rather than pro-active [problem solving] approaches about things that will take place in the future, or are taking place now . . . "

Mejia's five page memo went on to present the issues that he preferred to discuss. His memo told about a $300,000 deficit that the clinic had experienced in 1980. But, because both Mejia and the administration were not trusted, the memo had little impact on the employees. Additionally, many if not most of the employees believed that irresponsible acts by the board and the administration caused any deficit. Employees did not take the administration's complaints seriously since management had terminated a successful grant-funded program for teens and spent additional money for the legal fight to take away the employees voting rights.

The argument of cost had been used inappropriately as an excuse to end Maltos' employments. Later, about the middle of July in this year, one of the physicians, using the June 1979 and 1980 financial reports, pointed out the growing wasteful use of funds, some of which had been spent fighting the union.

January 7, 1980

Memo from Anibal Mejia, Executive Director, Re: Collection for Obstetrical Program

"The fee for obstetrical care must be collected no later than the seventh month of pregnancy. In the event the patient has not paid the total fee, the patient will be dropped from out Obstetrical program and must make their own arrangements for future obstetrical care."

Memo from Donald N. Vivian, M.D., Medical Director to Medical Doctors, Nurse Practitioners, Social Service, Midwives, Dentists, Re.: Referral and Inpatient Monitoring Protocol.

This memo introduced what became standard practice for all HMOs, the control of all medical services outside of the enrollment medical center.

"Outside consultant referrals must be made only by El Rio Providers on our referral form which then is countersigned by Dr. Vivian, Dr. Anderson, or Dr. Samoy. The form and patient then are referred to Social Service for review and the patient is instructed on what their financial responsibilities are. Patients are also to be told the referral will only cover the one visit as specified. All referrals to outside agencies must specify the type of service and for what length of time the patient will continue to go there. A copy of the form is placed in the medical record and a copy is given to the referral monitor who places the information that the encounter log. No bills will be paid to a consultant without the referral monitor receiving a written report. A consultant cannot refer a patient to another Provider without approval from an El Rio Provider. If our Provider refers a patient to a consultant or hospital after clinic hours, a note must be made on the telephone form. In the morning of the next working day, this form must be given to the referral monitor to be logged.

Admission to a hospital must be approved by an El Rio Provider. The Provider must complete the referral form or admission form and a copy given to the referral monitor. After clinic hours, the admission must be notated [noted] on the telephone form and the first thing in the morning of the next working day, the information must be given to the monitor. All inpatient stays of over six days will be brought to the attention of the Medical Director."

January 8, 1980

Minutes of NHCEO Meeting at "A" Mountain Center

For the first time, employees met with union staff people from AFSCME, Local 449. An air of excitement and anticipation prevailed but also many had reservations. Few fully understood both the strengths and weakness potentially in any union.

Guerena had been optimistic during this trying time. But years later, Guerena sadly recalled her earlier visions of the union:

"Lots of people thought that there would be [total] job security and better benefits and that was why they supported the union . . . we need to be paid fairly and get needed benefits."

January 9, 1980

Memo to All Staff from Mejia, Re.: Suggestion Box

In an attempt to improve relations with personnel, management established the "Employee Suggestion Boxes." They were placed in the employees' lounge and in the front lobby. The employees felt little confidence in this action because no obvious changes occurred.

Minutes of NHCEO Meeting and Rick Voakes, MD Presided

The employees' attorney, Debra Hillary, reported on the status of negotiations with the board and also on the "Contempt of Court" charges against the board. Earlier, on December 4, 1979, Judge Hannah had set a date which was later postponed, to consider whether or not the El Rio board had been in contempt of court. The case was scheduled to return to court on the following Thursday.

Three representatives from AFSCME came to this meeting: Jon Showalter, Director of AFSCME Local 449, and two other union staff people. Showalter presented some historical background about Local 449. Extensive discussion followed the presentation and serious concerns were discussed. The primary areas of concern revolved around two issues: (1) What can be negotiated in a contract, and (2) Who can the union represent.

The union representatives explained that the National Labor Relations Act can only enforce arbitration on certain issues. These included wages, hours of work, and conditions of employment. When layoffs become necessary, the conditions of the layoffs could be negotiated. For some employees, especially those who had strong ties to the patients, this limitation disappointed them. They had wanted some say on problems affecting the patients especially when they thought that policies being developed and implemented might have adverse effects on patient care.

The issues of whom the union could represent proved complicated. There existed precedents for physicians in unions. But those supervisors who could hire or fire subordinates would be excluded from the bargaining unit. Also, those employees who dealt with personnel issues or who worked directly under top management, such as executive secretaries, would be excluded from the bargaining unit. Others, who had some work assignments as supervisors but who could not hire or fire subordinates might be eligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit.

After this discussion, two motions passed. The first motion stated that NHCEO should become affiliated with AFSCME and begin the process of organizing all the potential employees into the union. Next it was moved required NHCEO to continue its support the court cases until its conclusion.

Larsen decided to continue with NHCEO but she would not work to organize the employees into a union. If a substantial number of employees signed union interest cards, then she too would join and support the effort. Larsen did not, at that time, want to commit the energy necessary to win what she saw as an uphill battle.

Mary Lou Gonzales had different reservations about unionizing. She did not believe that professional people belonged in unions. But then she remembered nurses at St. Mary's Hospital, under the Arizona Nurses Association, had organized and successfully secured raises for the nurses. Also this had been a painful time when Gonzales saw the administration and the board as adversaries. She hated conflict as she preferred to work on solving problems and not fighting. But the encouragement of another family nurse practitioner and a dear friend, Zora Zemsky, convinced her of the rightness of the cause. Zemsky recruited Gonzales and Gonzales went to work signing up other employees.

Other employees displayed more optimism. One employee commented:

"After months of sparring with management in the courts, it is time we secure our rights to organize and solve our problems through the rights guaranteed under the law. The National Labor Relations Act gives us the right to join the organization of our choice without fear of unfair dismissal and gives us the right to negotiate a contract covering the things that are important to us."

January 15, 1980

Ethel Larsen Chaired the First NHCEO Meeting Held at AFSCME Office

About 25 employees came to this meeting.

In the court case, the decision of Judge Hannah remained pending.

The Get Out the Vote Committee and the Fund Raising Committees reported employees still owed money to their attorney. The Fund Raising Committee would enter into negotiations with AFSCME about possible financial cooperation to pay the legal fees.

The Long Range Committee believed that out of 153 potentially union eligible employees, 102 (67%) had signed union interest cards within one week. That represented a very high percentage for a first try. Those cards went to the office of the National Labor Relations Board.

Extensive discussions with Showalter proceeded about the recognition of the union, what happened if layoffs occurred, and the NHCEO and AFSCME affiliations.

The NHCEO put out a leaflet to explain how the National Labor Relations Act might protect employees who wish to form a union. The Act declared that employees have the right to

"...form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining."

About Mid January 1980

Pima County Superior Court

Pat Patton, the Executive Secretary first for Maltos and then for Mejia, had been responsible for the recording of board minutes. From her experience with the board, Patton became intimately aware of the board's decisions and actions. In court, she testified that Diaz incorrectly counted the votes of the board members on the issue of changing the by-laws and that the board never secured the necessary votes to make the by-law changes. After her testimony, someone from the union came up to Patton and told her that she would be out of a job.

Some of the information that Hillary obtained appeared during the Court hearing and Baldenegro's group wanted to squelch that information.

Patton remembered,

"...certain letters, correspondence and information passed through several hands to Debra Hillary."

El Rio attorney, Mark Raven, tried in court to discount the information. He frequently raised the question about how the employees' attorney, Hillary, obtained her material. Hillary always disclaimed any knowledge of how it got to her. She contended only that it gratuitously landed at her door. Finally, the judge told Raven, that they (the employees) have all the information and you are not going to find out how it got there.

On later reflection, Patton thought Hillary got paid very little for her work. Patton believed that Hillary ". . . did good work and worked hard for the employees."

Findings of Judge J. Richard Hannah in Order 184388

Some of the "Findings:

"1) The annual meeting . . . shall be held on February 8, 1980 at 3:00 p.m. and shall not be further postponed or delayed.

2) The elections to fill the vacancies created by the expiring terms on the Board of Directors shall be held at said meeting.

3) All members of the corporation as defined in the present Article II, Section 2 of the by-laws . . . shall be permitted to vote at said meeting. [This included the employees and their families]

4) Any other proper business to be transacted at said meeting may also take place."

The Judge ruled the board's action to postpone the annual meeting invalid and that the board had the obligation of notifying the membership of the annual meeting.

At the end of Judge Hannah's orders was written:

"The court has taken pains to make this order so that it cannot be distorted or misconstrued. Its meaning and intent are clear. Lenience may not be expected if it is violated or evaded."

The employees had scored their first real victory over the errant board.

Years later as a practicing attorney, Fernando Gaxiola remembered the Judge's decision and remarked that the issues had been resolved quickly. He also believed that Hillary was a very competent attorney but that the employees' expectations appeared too high. The employees seemed satisfied with their attorney, but at that time, and for the employees involved, the case seemed drawn out.

Warren remembered both Gaxiola and Hillary as defenders of employees' rights and patient care issues.

Minutes of NHCEO/AFSCME Meeting Chaired by Dr. Josh Freeman

Attorney Debra Hilliary reported on Judge Hannah's decisions. The members present discussed the implications of the ruling. A specific concern involved how the elections might be conducted. The consensus of employees decided on having an outside group monitor the election and indicated that the League of Women Voter's might be that group. But, the union would be unsuccessful in securing this objective.

Showalter reported on his meeting with Mejia. The question of recognition of AFSCME as the sole bargaining unit would go before the board. If the board did not recognize the union then the question of sole bargaining unit would go before the National Labor Relations Board. The major issue would probably be what constituted a bargaining unit, or which employees would be eligible to be in the AFSCME bargaining unit. Employees selected a committee to go to the NLRB meeting if the board rejected recognition.

One employee who supported the concept of the union, but who would be put outside the bargaining unit, sadly remembered that meeting.

"There was a consensus that more protection was needed--that we needed a union."

January 28, 1980

Chicano Consortium Letter signed by Salomon Baldenegro

This letter notified people about a meeting at the El Rio Neighborhood Center on January 31st ". . . to make sure that the community retains control of the clinic."

The Chicano Consortium for public issues claimed:

"Over the past year there has been an organized attempt by a group of doctors and other 'professionals' to take over the clinic . . . basically, their approach is racist and class-oriented." The leaflet went on to say,

"In essence, their approach is racist and class-oriented. That is these 'professionals' cannot tolerate being governed by a Board made up of Mexicans, Yaquis, Blacks and members of the working class."

The letter included a list of "Board of Directors Members who are under attack." Names on the list included Rosemary Diaz, Salomon Baldenegro, Bess Morris, Donald Shelton, Bill Wills, Miguel Rojas, Emilio Elenes and Fernando Fajardo. Employees did not know if the board members listed originally gave their permission for the use of their names, but a small descriptive paragraph was placed after each board member named.

"Rosemary Diaz - (President) (Chicana): At-large representative, lives in Jolleville, product of Barrio Hollywood. Active in women, health and Chicano affairs. Works for Health Systems Agency. Member, Chicano Consortium."

"Salomon R. Baldenegro - (Vice President) (Chicano): At-large representative, product of Barrio Hollywood. Active in Chicano community, Executive Director of Youth Service Bureau. Member, Chicano Consortium."

"Bess Morris - (Black): Represents Nursing Association, active in many health professional groups, active in Black community, Director of Nursing at Pima College".

"Donald Shelton - (Anglo): Represents the United Steelworkers Union, miner at San Manuel Mine, active in union and political affairs."

"Bill Wills - (Treasurer) (Black): Represents Pima County government, active in several organizations benefitting Black/poor community."

"Miguel Rojas - (Chicano): Represents the downtown barrios/inner-city. Active in Chicano/poor activities, active in Model Cities programs, one of the founders of the clinic, works for Pima Health Department."

"Emilio Elenes - (Yaqui): Represents San Ignacio Yaqui Council, active in old Pascua Village, member, Chicano Consortium."

"Fernando Fajardo - (Chicano): Attorney, represents Legal Aid Society, product of south side (Pueblo High), active in housing and redlining issues affecting Chicanos and other poor people, Director of Rural Legal Aid program, member, Chicano Consortium."

When later asked about racism at the clinic, few, if any, employees held the above view.

Herlinda Valenzuela saw Baldenegro with the Chicano movement. She saw him as "a racist--just for Chicanos."

The very popular physician, Ava Wolfe, believed that Baldenegro and his followers "yelled racism" on every issue whether or not true. She thought of him as a dictator who wanted everyone on the board to agree with him and if they did not then he thought of how he could get rid of them. He had yelled racism so often that none of the physicians wanted to see him as a patient. Wolfe believed the physicians and nursing staff sensitive to the needs of the patients, but she did not feel confident that the administration and the board had that same level of sensitivity. On reflection, however, Wolfe explained that she may not have been aware of discrimination against the Yaqui Indians while at El Rio but later discovered that it may have been there. If Yaquis had not already enrolled, then they found it difficult to get enrolled. She added,

"It might not have been planned that way but that is what happened."

When asked the same question, Dolores Elenez responded by repeating the questions: "Were the physicians racists? No." When asked if any other kinds of racism existed at El Rio she again responded "No." But she added:

"There was discrimination against the handicapped . . . [a former employee] was not rehired after her back illness. Also, lots of Yaquis felt uncomfortable and feel they are treated, at times, inappropriately."

Jessie Reece believed that, over the years, there had been some racism directed against African-Americans. Still, she thought,

"there seemed to be a good relationship between patients and physicians."

Reece did not believe that the employees acted insensitively to patients except for isolated incidents.

Guerena, when asked about racism at the clinic commented that she always felt that the patient-physician relations generally remained good, and then added that sometimes the Yaquis, ". . . get real pushy."

Alicia Tovar, Baldenegro's former ally, saw a very strong and positive relation between the patients and the physicians while Warren saw the physicians as defenders of patients' rights as it applied to medical care. Tovar perceived the high turn over rate among the physicians to be the biggest problem.

Gloria Gonzales, a dental hygienist, also voiced concern about the growing high turnover rates when she observed,

"Patients now feel they are not getting enough personal care. They do not like the frequent change of providers. To me they seem very traumatized by the frequent changes."

Still, she believed that the physicians who came to El Rio behaved sensitively to cultural differences.

When the question came up about racism, a physician expressed the belief that Anti-Anglo racism existed.

Employees from multiethnic backgrounds, Mexican-American, Yaqui, Anglo and Jewish came to similar conclusions about both racism at the clinic and about Baldenegro.

January 29, 1980

Memo from Anibal Mejia, Executive Director to All Providers, Obstetricians, Midwives, Medical Records, Accounts Receivable, Social Service, Data Processing, Nurse Practitioners, Subject: OB Patients

"Patients enrolled in either one of our OB Programs and who have made no effort to make payment after 45 days, will be subject to be dropped from the Program. The names of these patients, the amount owed, and the date the patient was enrolled will be given to the Executive Officer for approval to drop from the OB Program.

No refund will be made until the fee for pre-natal visits is paid and there is no debt in the family account."

NHCEO/AFSCME Meeting at the "A" Mountain Center.

There had been extensive layoffs and this became the focus of extensive discussion. The group came to the consensus that the layoffs occurred because of political and not fiscal concerns. The group discussed the National Health Service Corp. employees. Physicians employed by El Rio were being laid off while they retained NHSC Physicians. This caused an ethical dilemma for the NHSC Physicians. It appeared to them that they functioned as scabs.

Showalter's report involved three main areas: (1) meeting with the NLRB, (2) the memo from management to the supervisors, and (3) responses to the layoffs.

Showalter informed the membership that since the board did not recognize AFSCME as the sole bargaining unit for the employees, there would be a formal hearing at the NLRB.

Showalter depicted management's memo to the supervisors as inaccurate and biased. In response to management's depiction of the union, Showalter distributed copies of the union's constitution.

In reply to the layoffs, all employees who wished to dispute their layoffs received encouragement to contact the union. They received encouragement to follow grievance procedures as outlined in the employee's handbook.

The Get Out the Vote Committee and the Agenda Committee, both in preparation of the board's annual meeting, made their respective reports.

January 31, 1980

Gaxiola's Open Letter

Chicano Consortium for Public Issues convened a closed meeting at the El Rio Neighborhood Center. Fernando Gaxiola, a patient of El Rio and the husband of an El Rio employee, was denied an opportunity to attend. The following are portions of an open letter from Gaxiola in response to the earlier leaflet.

"I fear from the tone of the notice . . . that this group has set out to use the emotional issue of racism in the worst way. There are valid and moral ways to address the problem of racism, but to say, in irresponsible fashion, that the professionals and doctors have over the past year organized to take over the Health Center through a racist and class oriented approach borders on the criminal. With one sweeping statement the authors of the notice, headed by the vice-president of the Board of Directors of El Rio Neighborhood Health Center, Salomon R. Baldenegro, have accused every doctor and professional in the Center of being a racist."

Gaxiola's letter impressed Patton. She believed that he could have been one of the community leaders if he wanted the job.

When asked what Patton recalled about racism at El Rio, she responded;

"I had always thought that racism was confined to whites but I learned that it has no color boundary. This was horrifying. I was shocked to see racism between Hispanics, Afro-Americans and whites. Some Hispanics hated the whites."

Notice from El Rio Union to El Rio Patients About Up Coming Elections

Because the role of the board was central to so many of the employees' complaints and concerns, they decided to solicit and run candidates independent of Baldenegro and his team. There had been some problems in getting people to run, but after some work, people supported by the employees did run for election to the board.

End of January 1980

Neighborhood Health News - Vol. 6, No. 1

Two items of special interest dealt with the annual meeting and the elections for board seats. These elections scheduled to be held February 8 were cancelled.

The second article reported a $215,087 deficit from 1979.

Commentary on Elections

Looking back at the El Rio board elections, one employee observed that there had been poor turnouts for most of those elections. Still, employees generally believed that elections remained necessary.

The next few elections turned out to be different. Lots of interest had been generated and many people, patients as well as employees, participated in both the annual meeting and the board elections.

February 1980 - Employees Vote for Union

Beginning of February

Arizona Daily Star

A meeting took place at the federal building, in downtown Tucson, to discuss the nature of the bargaining unit. Representatives of the NLRB were present along with some El Rio employees, Jon Showalter of AFSCME, El Rio's attorney and key people from El Rio's management. Among the employees attending were a custodian, a family nurse practitioner, an accountant, a family health worker, a medical records transcriber, and an internal medicine physician.

Showalter told the press that 153 of the El Rio employees, which represented about 70% of the full staff at that time, had signed union interest cards. This included employees, many of them middle management, not eligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit. Still, the cards provided a way for the union to determine if sufficient interest existed among the employees.

The press reported that Diaz had no problem with the union as long as just the rank and file employees belong. Diaz objected to the inclusion of supervisory and management personnel being in the bargaining unit. To many employees this signaled the exclusion of all health providers.

Lengthy discussions took place at the NLRB to determine which employees qualified as "supervisory and management personnel." It was decided that some employees in professional fields could vote on whether or not they wanted to be represented by the union and whether or not they wanted to be included in the same bargaining unit with the other employees.

Also at issue were the statuses of (1) confidential employees, (2) the medical professional staff and (3) the accountants. This meeting resulted in keeping the confidential employees and nursing supervisors out of the bargaining unit, allowing some medical professionals to decide for themselves but include the nurses, nurse practitioners and accountants within the bargaining unit.

The NHSC employees, physicians and nursing professionals, were all excluded from the bargaining unit. The rationale for excluding the NHSC employees was that they were not El Rio employees and additionally they were already included as part of the federal employees' bargaining unit.

In the end, slightly more than 100 employees were eligible for union membership. This proved a disappointment to many who felt excluded from the bargaining unit.

The official vote for or against the union was to take place February 28, 1980.

February 5, 1980

NHCEO Meeting Chaired by Josie Guerena

The "Get Out the Vote" Committee informed the membership that leaflets had been made and that they needed help distributing the leaflets. Three staff members of the union would be made available if anyone in the community needed transportation to the polls.

The annual meeting became the focus of much discussion. The League of Women Voter's agreed to conduct the elections. Mr. Mejia had expressed interest in discussing with NHCEO "leaders" problems of security. NHCEO told Mejia that they had no leaders and in any case there would be no security problems from employees. The agenda of the annual meeting became the focus of the discussion. The employees feared that the board might try to deny a business meeting so they discussed ways of preventing this from happening. Parliamentary procedures would be the tools used to prevent discussion so employees needed to become knowledgeable in the use of Robert's Rules of Order.

Showalter reported that an agreement governing the perimeters of the bargaining unit had been signed. The election for union affiliation would be held on Thursday, February 28 in the employees lounge from 3:30 to 5:30 and from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. Most employees would simply be given the choice of whether or not they wished to have AFSCME as their agent representing their interests. Some professionals, however, would be given two choices: First whether or not they wanted AFSCME Local 449 as their agent and second whether or not they wanted a separate bargaining unit which represented only professional employees. The NLRB mandated that the professionals have those two choices.

Leigh Roth and Ava Wolfe read their rebuttal letters. At that time we did not know that those two employees would become the focus of inappropriate management terminations. But in February, Roth wrote a letter in response to the January 28 accusations from the Chicano Consortium. Wolfe wrote to alert the community of the implications of the board's actions. Through time, Wolfe became known as a "whistle-blower," someone willing to point out inappropriate administrative or board behavior.

Gloria Gonzales had been afraid of the limits of her strength to maintain her integrity. But when she saw Wolfe speak out, she knew that Wolfe would be gone and indeed her assignment at El Rio was terminated. If they could get rid of Wolfe, Gonzales thought, then surely they could get rid of her.

Looking Back at this Time

Years later, in looking back at these times, Guerena only barely recalled the NHCEO and its meeting even though she chaired one of the meetings.

Conversely, some employees who often attended the NHCEO meetings but who found themselves excluded from the bargaining unit expressed sadness and regret. One such person, vulnerable to job loss, remarked that while she could not join the union, she still read the union newspaper to learn what happened.

Sometime in Early 1980

Jorge Garcia, who had a degree in Social Science, was hired at El Rio's new Personnel Director. He originally came from Phoenix.

February 7, 1980

Arizona Daily Star Editorial

This editorial advocated excluding physicians and nurses from joining unions. Shortly after the editorial appeared, Showalter responded with this letter titled "Anti-union."

"To the editor:

The Star's editorial of Feb. 7 continues the apparent policy of 'unions are all right, but . . . ' Last year it was, in effect, 'Unions are all right, but . . . not for teaching assistants at the university.' Now, its 'Unions are all right, but . . . not for health care workers.' Ten years ago it was 'Unions are all right, but . . . not for our printers.' and the Star proceeded to unleash one of the most effective anti-union drives this town has ever seen with strikebreakers and all the rest.

The Star's justification for being against health care workers forming into a union is that, 'unionization would only serve to undermine the high but costly level of health care provided to the poor of Pima County.' The Star backs this up by emphasizing the poor financial situation of the center and insisting that laying off doctors and nursing assistants is necessary, and therefore, the union's position against arbitrary budget cuts is unjustified. Yet, if the cuts were necessary, why is the center hiring a high-paid personnel director at the same time it's laying off seven direct providers of health care? If the cuts are not arbitrary why is the center keeping employees who are on probation and firing employees with 10 years of service?

It seems the editorial board of the Star does not read its own paper, for if it did it would quickly realize that the four-month battle which has led to unionization has not been over wages but over the direction the center has taken in meeting the goals set out in its incorporation papers and the center's action of stripping employees of their membership rights granted by virtue of the center's fringe benefit program."

Reece, sympathetic to the employees, saw it differently from Showalter. She believed that most employees organized and supported a union to protect their jobs. A general feeling among many employees prevailed that if the board could get rid of Maltos, then they surely felt vulnerable. Reece saw that many employees, who had spoken out, did end up losing their jobs and this too frightened a lot of employees. The excuses given for terminating employees were often not believed.

"How had Reece survived?" wondered Gloria Gonzales. Gonzales believed it was remarkable that Reece had not become calloused and that Reece continued to try to be helpful to employees when she could.

Both issues, protecting the goals set out in the incorporation papers and job security, remained very important to many if not most employees.

February 8, 1980

Scheduled Date for Annual Meeting as Ruled by Judge Hannah

The board ignored the ruling. So, El Rio employees decided to hold a brief annual meeting with the only business being rescinding the by-law changes and then postponing the rest of the annual meeting until a later date. Many community people showed up because they did not know about the cancellation. After Diaz announced the cancellation, Shirley Fish the Accounting Department supervisor, reopened the meeting and the community and employees voted to rescind the obnoxious by-law changes and then postponed the rest of the meeting until the board set the next date. This action proved insufficient to effectively correct the problems. The battle of the by-law changes persisted.

February 12, 1980

Meeting of the AFSCME/NHCEO Held at the AFSCME Office

Three issues received attention: (1) Prof. McBrearty's presentation, (2) solidifying employee support, and (3) contract negotiations.

Management had contacted a professor McBrearty from the University of Arizona to talk to the employees about the implications of unionizing. Showalter expressed satisfaction with this selection and told the membership present that McBrearty, a fair man, should be expected to give employees a balanced picture of what it meant to be unionized.

In the discussion of solidifying employee support, the membership focused on how they thought employees in the different departments might vote. AFSCME staff members stated that they would make themselves available at designated times for any employee who might have questions.

Discussion took place about the process of preparing for negotiations. The employees needed to select an employee Negotiation Committee. Efforts were made to maximize input from the employees regarding the issues to be addressed in a contract. What seemed of most concern to employees at this meeting were job security, grievance procedures, sick leave, layoff guidelines including plans for rehiring, and open registration for patients.

February 19, 1980

Notice Announcing "Union Meeting"

This day's agenda included four items: "Organizing for Election Day," "Development of Contract Language," and "Election of Negotiating Committee." On the back side of the notice, a short questionnaire solicited the employees' preferences and also explained some union terms.

Employees needed to prioritize the following:

"GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE a quick procedure ending with a neutral, third party arbitrator making the final decision rather than management or the Board.

LAYOFF AND RECALL PROCEDURE- a procedure detailing in what order people will be laid off, usually by seniority,. . . , giving laid off employees the right to come back in any vacant position for which they qualify.

COST OF LIVING INCREASE, as well as, bring up those classifications below the market wage rate in Tucson.

OPENING REGISTRATION- As is well known, present registration is limited to 15 families per month. This proposal would open registration to an agreed upon number. [The purpose of this, was to reopen the clinic to some of the neighborhood people]

STAFFING PATTERNS- Define the number of Health workers per providers, or the number of dental or pharmacy aides per shift to prevent short staffing and insure quality health care.

A detailed system for PROMOTIONS clearly stated giving current employees priority over outsiders.

Change the SICK LEAVE policy ending the penalization of those employees taking more than 4 days a year."

After a brief discussion on the presentation of the "Get Out the Vote Committee," extensive discussion about what the employees' responses would be to union affiliation took place. The prevailing view at this meeting believed that the employees would vote overwhelmingly for affiliation with the union. A questionnaire about contract negotiations had been put together and distributed among the employees. Few of the questionnaires had been returned and the members present were asked to encourage their co-workers to consider the questionnaire, fill them out and then returned them to the union.

February 21, 1980

A Letter to the Editor, in the Tucson Citizen, by Barney Popkin

This letter claimed the issues at El Rio involved local control of the clinic by neighborhood people vs. a few disruptive employees who were well educated, highly paid and reflected a racist view.

In response through another letter to the editor, an El Rio physician disputed claims of racism and claimed that calls of racism covered up serious problems at the clinic. El Rio employees tried unsuccessfully to determine Barney Popkin's identity: not an employee, member of the Board of Directors, nor an active patient. The employees could not explain Barney Popkins.

About February 22, 1980

AFSCME Leaflet Distributed Explaining Advantages of Joining a Union

Beginning with the quote: "A group of employees joining together to promote matters of common concern," the leaflet noted:

"On February 28th you will be given the opportunity to decide whether or not you want to form a union. This decision will be based, in part, upon those concepts that you may have of unions, although you may never have been a member of one before. We feel that in Arizona, being a state with little tradition of unionism, it is helpful for us to explain how a union works and who makes the decisions."

"Unions are voluntary democratic organizations dedicated to pursuing those goals set by the union members themselves. What the members of the union want is usually expressed in its contract proposal. This is a listing of those items created and voted upon by the membership that is presented to management as its opening proposal for a contract. The elected negotiating committee, based upon the strength of its positions and the membership, sits with management and through the give and take process called negotiations tried to reach agreement on a contract - a document that sets out in writing the conditions of employment for both employees and management."

"The contract that is negotiated by the Committee is then brought back to the membership to be voted upon. If the membership likes the contract it is then ratified. If the membership is dissatisfied, the Committee is directed to go back to management and continue negotiating. If the membership feels that action is necessary to gain what they want, i.e., picketing, lobbying of the Board, it is voted on by the membership."

"Once the contract is agreed upon, the role of the union becomes one of insuring that the provisions of the contract are lived up to by management. This is done by each unit electing a steward - . . . a representative of the union trained in contract administration and representation. Any employee with a problem or a grievance has the right to have the steward investigate and represent them through the negotiated grievance process."

"So, as you decide on how to vote on the 28th, ask yourself these questions:

--Can an organization of my co-workers help me achieve my employment goals?

--Can management take care of my employment goals better than my co-workers and me?

--Can my co-workers and I run an organization in a manner that will allow all to participate and be heard?"

This leaflet contained a notice informing the employees that union representatives would be available all of the coming week, before the vote, to answer questions that one might have about the union.

While the union grew, from the start the union enjoyed strong support from most of the employees. Many of the employees saw the union as a protector of their rights at the work place but more importantly of their jobs.

About February 26, 1980

Management's Leaflet

In their fight against the union, management put out the most unbelievable paper entitled, "Management's Point of View." The paper started out with some potential for believability and then descended into total incredibility:

"FRINGE BENEFITS

As an NHC employee you enjoy one of the most liberal fringe benefit packages in town. Unionization cannot provide any more.

COST OF LIVING INCREASE

Granted, the 5% cost of living increase you received this past year or previous years has not kept up with the increasing cost of living. The 5%, however, was the most the center could provide.

UNIONIZATION WILL NOT PROVIDE MONEY IF THERE IS NONE.

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

The NHC Employee Handbook describes your grievance procedure.

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION ON POLICY MATTERS

No question that this is needed, and Management ENCOURAGES IT. Employees, however, need to recognize that they cannot be makers of the final decision.

UNIONS RECOGNIZE THAT MANAGEMENT HAS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE. UNIONS DO NOT PARTICIPATE AS MANAGEMENT. UNIONIZATION WILL NOT MAKE THE BARGAINING UNIT A FINAL DECISION MAKER.

Unionization has not and will not prevent layoffs.

-- Why the question of two bargaining units? Are not the interests of the rank and file equal to those of the providers?

-- VOTE . . . Whatever your decision VOTE. Contrary to the Union flyer of Friday both females and males can vote in the election.

-- IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ASK YOUR SUPERVISOR OR PERSONNEL MANAGER.

The suggestion that the providers sought a separate bargaining unit for themselves seemed particulary odious although a few employees may have bought into that lie. The NLRB required that the physician and some of the other professionals have the opportunity to have a separate bargaining unit if they so chose. Instead, El Rio's professionals would choose overwhelmingly to be in the same bargaining unit with the other employees. Additionally, management's implication that the union advocated a separate sex union loomed beyond comprehension. Management's suggestions distorted the reality that becomes evident at the NLRB election.

February 27, 1980

AFSCME/NHCEO Meeting

At this meeting the members discussed union affiliation, leaflets and contract proposals. In terms of the annual meeting, the discussion focused on the actual meeting itself and what might be the board's actions.

The vote for union affiliation was held under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Three observers were present: one from the union, one from management and one from the NLRB. Alicia Tovar served as the union representative.

Putting together a contract proposal would begin after collecting all the questionnaires that had been distributed.

For the annual meeting, proxies made by the employee's attorney would be available. In terms of the board's recent action, concern had been expressed about the board's motive in the latest court appeal. At this time, speculation about the focus of the appeal prevailed.

The following union leaflet went out:

"DON'T BE FOOLED

For the past month or so, El Rio management has been conducting an anti-union drive, not in the traditional sense of threatening to fire, or using the rewards they have at their disposal to encourage anti-union feeling, but in a more sophisticated manner - by trying to split the Providers from the rest of the staff.

There has been an almost daily tirade of Letters to the Editor by real or unreal people decrying the small minority of Providers' attempts to challenge the Board's action in several areas [This was an exaggeration as there were only a few letters]. Some insisting that the Providers are racist, others stating that the Board can represent the interests of the employees better than 'the small minority of Providers.' Each in its own way has tried to drive a wedge between you and your co-workers. What none of the letters have pointed out is that Providers are not all Anglo; that the Providers are acting in concert with other employees of the Center; that the Providers are not making the decisions for NHCEO or for AFSCME, or that the attempts of the staff has been to re-institute the by-laws that have allowed El Rio to grow and serve the community for the past 10 years.

This constant stream of letters and editorials are not happening in a vacuum; they are all designed to make employees of the center distrust one another to vote against forming a union.

Management has even gone as far as to imply that the decision of having two bargaining units was through the action of the Union where, in fact, it is the National Labor Relations Act that mandates the choice of a separate bargaining unit for Professionals. [Sec. 9.b. NLRA]

When you vote on Thursday, February 28th try and cut through the orchestrated lies and ask yourself?

-Can a Provider who gives up the monetary pleasures of private practice to work for El Rio really be racist?

-Can an organization in which every member has a vote be controlled by a small group?

-Can a Union that is made up of working people, 40% minority like yourself, and has constantly fought both economic racism and sexism tolerate racism in its own ranks?

On Thursday vote to have a voice in the future of both El Rio and your own job. Vote to reaffirm your belief that employees of El Rio can have an organization that is in the best interest of employees and patients. Vote 'Yes'."

February 28, 1980

NLRB Supervised Election on Unionization

The physicians and dentists had a separate ballot with three choices. They could either vote:

1. To not be affiliated with AFSCME

2. To be affiliated but as a separate bargaining unit, or

3. To be affiliated within the same bargaining unit as the rest of the eligible employees.

Of the physicians and dentists who voted, they voted overwhelmingly for the third option. The vote cast ran 79% pro-union and 21% anti-union.

The employees, voting under the jurisdiction of the NLRB, overwhelmingly chose to recognize AFSCME as the bargaining agent for the El Rio employees. Even employees such as Virginia Bishop, who had stayed outside the conflict, voted for and joined the union. Coronado, like some other employees, believed in the union because of past family experiences. Coronado remembered her mother saying that employees remained at the mercy of the employers and with the union the employees enjoyed some measure of justice.

Gallardo recalled that in her suite,

"Even the docs were 100% union and all the nurse practitioners, team leaders [who were outside the bargaining unit], all were for the union."

In all, of those that voted, more than 90% voted for the union. Still, a few employees persisted in being definitely anti union. Through time, a wedge grew between the anti union employees and the union members as trust between the two groups diminished.

Most of the registered nurses stood outside of the bargaining unit and therefore could not join the union. Still, many of those nurses wanted to be included as part of the union because they would have rights under the union contract that they did not have without coverage of that contract.

As the result of the vote that day, El Rio had a unique bargaining unit, an inclusive union which is known as an "industry wide" bargaining unit. It had accountants, clerks, custodians, dental hygienist, family health workers, family nurse practitioners, lab technicians, maintenance people, medical record transcribers, suite secretaries, physicians, pharmacists, social service people, telephone operators, typists, x-ray technicians and others, all in one bargaining unit.

For Tovar, in addition to the joy she had, it also meant the beginning of a lot of work. Tovar set out to get employees to sign union membership cards. Warren recruited physicians. Both proved very effective and within a very short time they had signed up lots of members.

For most union employees, saw it as a memorable day. Having accomplished a huge victory, the El Rio union members had their first celebration by taking over a local restaurant. After months of struggle, a sense of unity and joy exploded in this victory party.

Early Months in 1980

During the height of the conflict, employees used the El Rio personnel mailboxes to communicate with employees. This was done without the approval of management and in secret. Another election of the board of elections needed to take place and employees began to campaign. Notices, placed in mailboxes, helped employee friendly candidates to get elected. Although Wolfe never used the mailboxes, one of her students did and later Wolfe believed that might have been one of the reasons they fired her.

March 1980 - Union Elections & Acrimonious Annual Meeting

March 4, 1980

Union Meeting

On this day, El Rio employees held their first union meeting after they had voted to unionize. It convened at the AFSCME office in the artisan section of downtown Tucson and was the only joint AFSCME/NHCEO meeting. This day's agenda included:

Nominations of Officers

Nominations of Stewards

Nominations of Negotiating Committee

Annual meeting of March 7.

Fifty-nine employees out of slightly more than one hundred eligible employees had already officially joined the union.

Union members received copies of the AFSCME Local 449's Constitution and the AFSCME staff pointed out that regular union meetings of the new El Rio division would shortly be held on a monthly basis in addition to meetings of Local 449. El Rio became one of five unions or bargaining units within AFSCME Local 449. The Local's constitution required that elections be held for the positions of Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary of each bargaining unit. The other bargaining units represented by Local 449, at this time, involved employees from the City of Tucson, Pima County, Pima Community College and some from the Tucson Unified School District. The Local's Constitution also recommended but did not require election of a Chief Steward and a Negotiations Committee.

Candidates for all positions in the El Rio union received nominations.

In preparation for the El Rio annual meeting, the attorney, all union members and employees unable to be in the bargaining unit had access to attorney Debra Hillary. Some discussion took place regarding the distribution of union leaflets.

Although another meeting of the AFSCME/NHCEO was scheduled, it would be cancelled and became the last regular meeting of the NHCEO. Also, a year later there would be a joint AFSCME/NHCEO meeting to "Meet the Candidates" prior to the next election for the Board of Directors.

March 6, 1980

Minutes of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors

Four of the seven members of the Executive Committee attended this meeting and this constituted a quorum. Some employees saw the Executive Committee of the board as the central site of power within the board. They believed that the decisions of the Executive Committee were generally those that ultimately prevailed.

"Mrs. Diaz stated that her understanding is that [D]HEW has asked NHC to look at going back to the original Model Cities Units and having that area re-designated as the only area in which we will provide service. At the same time, they [DHEW] want NHC to generate more revenue, which is now being done primarily through the HMO enrollments . . . "

"Mrs. Diaz stated that during the entire union campaign the board and administration had been very cooperative in giving employees access to as much information as possible regarding union pros and cons. She further stated that she has now become concerned due to the fact that the union has wanted more and more to do with board business and meetings."

Most union employees disputed the statement that the board had been cooperative. Warren remarked, and most employees believed, that Diaz fought the union. The statements of the Executive Committee continued:

"Superior Court Ruling - Appeal. Mr. Mejia stated that he wanted to inform all the board members that an appeal has been filed. At this point, Mr. Mark Raven, NHC's corporate attorney, arrived and reported that the appeal was in regards to Judge Hannah's last and final order."

"Regarding the Executive Director's Job, Mr. Mejia stated that the latest criteria from [D]HEW would pertain to future applicants for the position. Copies of the Qualifications and Experience requirements, as directed from Mr. Maready, were distributed to the members present."

"Mr. Mejia reported that the number of registrations for the Yaqui contract far surpassed anyone's expectations. The original agreement was that for the first month of the contract, NHC would be paid for 1,500 enrollees, regardless of how many were registered. The second month's rate would be contingent on the number actually registered."

March 7, 1980

The NLRB certified AFSCME as the bargaining agent of the El Rio employees.

Pat Patton found a dismissal note in her mail box on this day. The termination of Patton appeared to concern the San Francisco Office of the DHEW as they phoned El Rio to determine what had happened. But DHEW, limited in what it could do, took no immediate action. Patton believed that DHEW's one major control involved funding and the 1980 funding for El Rio had been reduced.

Patton thought that some members of the board demonstrated such vindictiveness,

"...they would destroy the clinic just for their own ends."

March 11, 1980

Letter from Anibal Mejia, Executive Director to Ronnie Lopez, Administrative Assistant, Office of the Governor, Arizona State Capitol

This is a scathing letter about the Department of Insurance which provided some regulatory controls over insurances and Health Maintenance Organizations in Arizona. Mejia complained to Ronnie Lopez about difficulties in getting the department to approve of El Rio's Insolvency Plan. The issue, of El Rio's financial status if a situation of "insolvency" arose, came after El Rio attempted to secure an HMO contract which covered state employees.

With the help of State Senator Jaime Gutierrez and possible Ronnie Lopez, El Rio secured the contract to cover the state employees and then used this contract as a selling point to market to businesses.

March 12, 1980

Letter from Elizabeth P. Patton, to Grievance Committee, El Rio Board

"I am respectfully requesting an extension of my grievance hearing as I have not received the eight (8) days prior notice required by the grievance rules.

The facts regarding my grievance hearing notice are as follows:

1. The Notice was postmarked March 7, 1980, making March 15, 1980, the earliest date possible for my hearing.

2. I received the notice, return receipt requested, this morning at 9:30 a.m. approximately.

3. Today, I spoke with the Personnel Director, Jorge Garcia, requesting a changed date so that I would have sufficient time to prepare myself. He denied me a change of date.

4. My request for 8 days prior notice is based on the grievance procedure sent to me by Mr. Garcia.

Therefore, I am requesting that my hearing before the Grievance Committee be scheduled for not earlier than Thursday, March 20, 1980. I will not present my case with less than the proper notice. I am not waiving my grievance."

March 14, 1980

AFSCME Announcement to Employees

The results of the first election for new union officers found Alicia Tovar as Chief Steward, Ethel Larsen as Chair, Barbara Warren MD as Vice-Chair, and Josie Guerena as Secretary.

On the first Negotiations Committee would be Eric Cramer MD, Ray Figueroa, Mary Lou Gonzales, FNP, Ethel Larsen, Alicia Tovar, Carmen Velez, and Barbara Warren MD. Before too long, Leigh Roth (CNM) and Ernesto Gutierrez (RPh) joined the team.

Tovar had been a great organizer and advocate for the employees and later for patient rights. She played a superb role as a union steward who understood fully the appropriate responsibilities this position required. For Larsen as the new Chair, Tovar provided great support. Tovar demonstrated willingness and able to challenge people in authority, whether in the El Rio administration or the AFSCME union. Often the situation required courage, something Tovar had.

Warren, who some saw as the physician's physician, showed dedication to unionization for all the employees in the bargaining unit. One physician believed that Warren had ". . . master mined and coordinated the whole thing." Gallardo also believed that if we had not had Warren, we might not have had the union. Gallardo thought Warren was great. In the early days, Warren was the major reason so many professionals felt comfortable enough to join and remain within an industry wide union. In her role as vice-president, Warren started the first union newsletter at El Rio.

For Mary Lou Gonzales, contribution to the negotiations meant temporarily forgoing many of her professional activities especially education. She felt torn between professional obligations and requirements and union needs or problems. In a quiet but determined way, Gonzales worked hard and continued to maintain great integrity.

The new secretary had been there from the beginning in the NHCEO where she chaired a meeting. But her goals differed somewhat from many of the other original employees. Guerena stood firmly for traditional union benefits of working conditions, security and wage increases and did not appreciate the unique history of El Rio.

While well known among many employees, some employees viewed Larsen with suspicion. Elenez had doubts about Larsen. She thought that Larsen stood either on "our" side or that she conspired with management.

"We did not have the whole picture about Larsen, still Larsen enjoyed a lot of trust from the employees."

Dr. Eric Cramer, another very popular pediatrician, gentle with children, showed anger at the events as they enfolded. Although he supported the union, he did not remain long at El Rio.

Carmen Velez worked in Social Service. Her job required that she move from place to place at El Rio. As a strong and knowledgeable supporter of the union, her flexibility to move among the employees proved effective.

Ray Figueroa, the custodian, had prior history with unions, but management promoted him out of the bargaining unit, so Figueroa did not remain on the union team.

Under very difficult circumstances, El Rio employees' first group of officers and negotiators provided an honest and effective team. For most employees, either as officers or on the Negotiations Committee, serious participation meant giving up precious time at home with friends and family. But, they also gained much and in some cases strong, new friendships blossomed.

Gutierrez had known Jorge Garcia at ASU. Gutierrez did not stay long at El Rio as he went back to school to study medicine and then practice internal medicine.

Sunday, March 16, 1980

Acrimonious Annual Meeting - Originally Scheduled for November 20, 1979, Continued in February and Ended on March 16

The agenda read: Call to Order, Call to the Public, Annual Report, Presentation of Awards and Adjournment. This innocuous agenda belied the simmering undercurrent about to erupt.

One El Rio employee later remarked, "There was no other meeting like it." A reporter from the Arizona Daily Star, Rob Levin, taking his cue from board members, reported that Dr. Eric Cramer stood out as El Rio's "most vocal physician and employee leader." While Dr. Cramer passionately expressed his beliefs that wrongs had been done, he was not the employees' leader. It would be difficult to determine a single leader, but the board might have believed that Cramer played the role of ". . . the chief representative . . . " for the employees.

Levin's article went on to say:

"Harshest of the critics was Cecilia Cruz Baldenegro, wife of board Vice President Salomon Baldenegro, who accused the center's doctors of neglect and added that employees have been politicking on company time."

Alice Gallardo remembered that Baldenegro's wife accused the clinic of providing poor medical care. Baldenegro supported his wife's tirade by claiming that the physicians were prejudiced and that they were all Jews.

Gallardo further recalled that the place was packed with "viejitas," little old ladies. The viejitas, gathered by Baldenegro's people were to criticize the physicians but they did not play their role well. Instead, Gallardo remembered, when these women got up to speak they talked glowingly about the physicians and the nurses.

During the meeting, when the physicians were accused of being insensitive to patients, Gallardo spoke out in their defense.

Also at the March 16 meeting, "low riders" supporters of Baldenegro, also cussed the employees out. When the meeting broke out, the employees encircled Dr. Cramer to protect him against possible harm.

Larsen, herself Jewish, began to think that perhaps some of the board members were anti-Semitic or at least using anti-Semitic tactics for their aims. That belief later grew when both Wolfe and Roth were fired on what appeared to be trumped up charges. Both had Jewish sounding names.

In the midst of all this acrimony, Wolfe attempted to get a motion passed that did not deal with the conflict but aimed at expanded health care coverage in Arizona. Her motion supported a medicaid program for Arizonans:

"I move that this corporation joins any coalition existing, or initiate efforts to form such a coalition, that will work toward getting Medicaid funded in Arizona . . . and that we begin this effort as soon as possible."

Her motion received little attention from the board.

Wolfe's motion deserved attention because Arizona citizens, living in the only state in the United States not receiving federal medicaid money, sorely hurt. Eventually in 1983, Arizona initiated a unique program commonly known as AHCCCS, pronounced "access." This program opened the doors to excellent health care services but generally only to the poorest of Arizona citizens and to a few small businesses. The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) program eventually became a state run Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) for the indigent population. Unlike other medicaid programs, it covered fewer people but provided better opportunities for comprehensive care to those that managed to secure coverage. All this remained for the future as in March of 1980, Arizona had no federal medicaid program.

The annual meeting of the board had been an opportunity for the community and for the employees to express their concerns but it was not, in reality, where the power of the board actually lay. To a large degree, most of the community people remained unaware of the problems at El Rio except for those who actually worked at the clinic. The board members had some knowledge but the true power of the board lay with a small group of board members who made up the Executive Committee.

The election for membership on the board had also been held. Five of the candidates supported by the union won their seats. It became clear that the union could be a potent force in such elections.

March 24, 1980

The El Rio union presented its first interim agreement to management.

March 27, 1980

Arizona Daily Star

Salomon Baldenegro was elected to the position of Chair of the board. This had been expected by El Rio employees, but still it ". . . brought grumbles from many of them." The article continued,

"Some employees have said Baldenegro has been the board member who has antagonized employees most. They charged before the election that he was using friends to mobilize community support for his board presidency. "

The Tucson Citizen News

Reporting on the election, saw Baldenegro as the person " . . . who has been at the center of a controversy between the board and the clinic's employees."

Baldenegro denied accusations made in both Tucson newspapers.

Some of the new board members had received support from the employees and displayed some friendliness to employee issues. But, Baldenegro's position on the board had not been up for reelection along with other board members whom many of the employees viewed as hostile.

March 28, 1980

Arizona Daily Star

Baldenegro claimed he will begin talks with AFSCME.

April 1980 - Disenrollments & Grievances

April 3, 1980

Memo from Alicia Tovar, Chief Steward to Fellow Union Members

Elections for the positions of Stewards were announced.

April 15, 1980

Memo from Donald Vivian, M.D. Medical Director to Community Relations, Accounts Receivable, Registration, Triage, Re.: Disenrollment of Patients

The concept of "disenrollment" meant that patients could no longer use the services of the clinic."Patient disenrolled at the Clinic and presenting themselves for care should be told they are no longer eligible for care at the Clinic. Furthermore, if they insist that they are an emergency, they should be referred to St. Mary's Hospital Emergency Room."

About Mid April 1980

Secretly, Wolfe asked others to check on the disenrollment of some of her patients, but this did not go unnoticed. The administrative complained that patients under Wolfe's care were not going to the Kino County Hospital.

April 21, 1980

Letter from Mejia to Sheridan Weinstein, M.D., San Francisco Regional Health Administrator

Mejia tried to prevent cuts in funding and to secure more funds from the San Francisco Regional Office of the DHEW.

The following paragraph summarized his three page letter.

"This situation can be summarized as follows: The addition to the deficit of a loss of revenue would signify a current working deficit of one half of a million dollars. The latter represents one sixth of the working budget which represents two months of operations. It is not clear, at this point, exactly how the Center would deal with this situation in view of the on going austerity program, the recent reductions in personnel, and other budget cuts in force at the present time; nevertheless we feel that we had a consensus with the regional office as to how we were going to proceed. Your efforts in restoring the funding levels to the previously established level will be invaluable to normalized the provision of health care services to the residents of Tucson."

April 22, 1980

Letter from Patton, to Emilio Elenes, Chair of Board's Grievance Committee

"RE: Appeal to the Full Board

I am requesting a full review of my termination appeal by the full Board.

I am requesting that this matter be placed on the agenda for the regular May meeting or scheduled for a special meeting of the Board. Please notify me at least five days prior to the scheduled day for review.

I want the full board to have notice of my review hearing and I request the following information to be made available to myself as well as all members of the Board prior to the hearing:

A copy of the employment contract and salary information of the newly hired employee in the Administration area.

All contracts and preliminary letters of agreement regarding the Yaqui HMO contract.

There may be one or two items that I would like to request but will do so if it is decided they are necessary.

I would also like to request that people be allowed to present certain evidence at that time.

Thank you for your attention to this matter."

About April 23, 1980

A Letter from a Whistle Blower Employee

The letter read as follows:

"On approximately April 23, 1980, . . . [anonymous Hispanic employee] informed me that she was going to take the test for the position at El Rio. . . . that I presently held at that time. She asked me if I would show her how to work the last problem on the test.

. I asked her how she knew what the problems were? She informed me that Jorge Garcia [Personnel Manager] had showed her the test prior to taking the test."

The integrity of the new Personnel Manager was now in question among those aware of the whistle blowers' claim and this added to the employees' distrust of management.

April 28, 1980

Memo from Mejia to All Providers, Accounts Receivable Supervisor, Nurses, Head Nurse, Registration and Community Relations Re.: Disenrollment of Patients

Many employees, especially the much maligned health professionals, abhorred management's attempt to refuse services to patients at the same time that they solicited new patients covered by HMOs. Some concern focused on the effects of such disenrollments on the children the midst of specialized treatment. Mejia attempted to reduce the opposition to those disenrollments with this memo:

"There appears to be some misunderstanding regarding the disenrollment of patients. This Memo should clarify our program of patient disenrollment.

My Memo of January 29, 1980 states that patients who have made no effort to pay their outstanding debt to the Clinic in a 45 day period, are subject to be disenrolled. This includes the entire family. My Memo of April 15, 1980, states 'those patients disenrolled who present as emergency should be referred to St. Mary's Emergency Room' . . .

The Medical Director reviews all cases in which disenrollment has been recommended. This review is done to preclude disenrollment of patients who are undergoing active treatment or work-up for an illness. This does not particularly mean patients with a chronic illness and on maintenance therapy will not be disenrolled. These cases will be decided on an individual basis.

Patients who have been disenrolled and desire to be registered will be obligated to pay on their outstanding debt prior to being registered. The amount they must pay will be decided by Mr. Mike Guzman.

A copy of the patients who have been disenrolled will be given to the patient's provider for their information on a periodic basis.

The rationale behind this policy as I have explained previously, is that in this period of financial austerity, we must make every effort to collect as much as we possibly can of our outstanding debts. In the past we have been remiss in not doing this. There are very few patients who cannot contribute something toward their debt.

I believe that our system of registration is fair and that if we have determined a patient fits into a certain pay category, then that patient has the capability to pay the percentage. Even a zero pay category of patients, I believe, can pay something no matter how small to help support their Clinic. I am asking each of our registered patients to take a personal interest in the welfare of their Clinic and to make an honest effort for fulfilling their financial obligations."

Memo from Donald N. Vivian, M.D., Medical Director to All Providers, Mike Guzman- Accounts Receivable Supervisor, Chief Financial Officer, Leigh Roth, Dr. J. Bauman, Ms. Alicia Tovar, and Social Services

"Any patient desiring tubal ligation either immediately following vaginal delivery or post partum must be referred to Mr. Mike Guzman before any arrangements are made with the Tucson Clinic obstetrician or with Dr. J. Bauman. This is required so the patient may be informed of an additional anesthesia charge over and about the charge for routine anesthesia for delivery. This charge must be collected before the procedure is performed."

April 29, 1980

Larsen Memo to Union Membership Regarding 1^st Draft of Contract

The first draft of the contract, as the union ideally like it to be, appeared. The union informed employees that the preliminary draft of the contract had been brought to the negotiation table. Members received lists of the Negotiation Committee and of their Shop Stewards.

April 30, 1980

Memo: from Ethel Larsen, Chair, to The Union Membership Re.: Negotiation Committee

"The negotiation committee has spent many hours working on putting together a contract. A proposed interim agreement was submitted to Mr. Mejia on March 24th. Copies of the agreement submitted have been available at the union office. The agreement contains provisions for the following:

Recognition of the bargaining unit.

Employee rights.

Discipline & discharge procedures.

Union security.

Grievance and arbitration.

Seniority

Minimum standards until the full contractual agreement.

Although we have made several attempts, we have not yet been able to meet with management in negotiations. No date has yet been set for the beginning of negotiations.

The negotiation committee has additionally completed a draft of a significant portion of the full proposed agreement. This includes sections dealing with:

Probationary period.

Allowances (Uniform allowances & mileage)

Work in a higher classification

Non-Discrimination

Hours (Regular, overtime and shift differentials.)

Leaves (Annual, Educational, Sick, etc.)

Staffing Patterns

Committees of employees/management to deal with employee health and safety & education leaves

Employees Bill of Rights

Patient care issues

When completed we will present the full draft to the membership for amendments and approval.

Currently, the negotiation committee is beginning to deal with job descriptions and the corresponding wage ranges. The job descriptions given to us by the personnel director are seriously antiquated. Your help in up dating will greatly increase our ability to bargain for realistic and equitable wage ranges. We strongly urge you to contact your steward or a member of the negotiation committee during your free time [lunches and breaks] and work with them in the up dating of your job descriptions.

The elected Shop Stewards gained responsibility for ensuring that management honored provisions in the contract.

NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE SHOP STEWARDS

Eric Cramer, M.D. Jim Cooley

Ray Figueroa Ray Figueroa

Mary Lou Gonzales, FNP Irene Fisher

Ethel Larsen Alice Gallardo

Alicia Tovar Gloria Gonzales

Carmen Velez Juanita Rivera

Barbara Warren, M.D. Leigh Roth, FNP

Chris Ruelas

Alicia Tovar

Nancy Wyss"

These Shop Stewards went into training so that they could better understand the range and depth of their commitment to their co-workers through the protection of a Labor/Management Contract. Some of the employees who could not understand their role ceased being Shop Stewards.

April 30, 1980

Union Notification to Employees Regarding Difficulty of Starting the Negotiation Process

"Although we have made several attempts, we have not yet been able to meet with management in negotiations. No date has yet been set for the beginning of negotiations."

The interim agreement submitted to Mejia on March 24th contained minimum standards for recognition of the bargaining unit, employee rights, discipline and discharge procedure, union security, grievance, arbitration and seniority."

The interim agreement submitted to Mejia on March 24 contained minimum standards for recognition of the bargaining unit, employees' rights, discipline and discharge procedure, union security, grievance, arbitration and seniority rights.

After several union attempts, the union's Negotiation Committee had not yet been able to meet with management's Negotiation Committee.

About April 30, 1980

Letter from Elizabeth P. Patton, to the El Rio Board of Directors

"I continue to believe that my termination was a direct result of my testimony in court. It is evident that the information I requested on April 22, 1980, is easily available.

The refusal to make available this evidence places an unfair burden of proof on me in regard to the Center's financial condition.

I am taking this opportunity to request that the Board direct the Executive Director to make this information available. I feel that the Board has an interest in seeing that no injustice is done or perceived to be done and by making this directive they can ensure fairness to all.

I am not waiving my rights to a fair hearing and I believe that I cannot have such a hearing until the Board makes all requested information available to me and my representative."

May 1980 - Class Action Suit & Interim Contract

May 1, 1980

Class Action Petition to the Pima County Superior Court of Appeals

In utter frustration, thirty-two El Rio employees filed a class action petition in their attempt to reverse the board's by-law changes. The plans for this action had matured at the earlier meetings of the NHCEO. Attorney Debra Hillary, with the help of some University of Arizona law students, among them the president of the minority law students, Fernando Gaxiola, helped with the process.

A large trailer sat on the street just south of the main entrance of El Rio. Employees could review the petition and join in the class action by adding their name to the petition. For many employees, the act of signing took great courage. A large number of the employees who signed no longer had employment at El Rio a year later. While many would be laid off, one can only guess at why others left. But a belief prevailed that some of the signers had been pushed out by the actions of management.

A reasonably representative group of the wide diversity of employees could be found among those who signed the petition. Many were not in the bargaining unit and so they could not join the union. Among the employees who signed were three physicians, three family nurse practitioners, several clerical and family health workers. Ethnically, Hispanics prevailed but Anglos, Jews, and Yaquis also signed the class action petition.

Although the planning for the class action suit took place at NHCEO meetings over a period of time, the actual time for signing the petition was not pre announced. In the end, within a very brief time, just a few hours, thirty-two employees joined in the class action law suit.

About May 2, 1980

Mejia met with AFSCME's Showalter and El Rio union's Chair, Larsen. Together they set the date of May 13, 1980 for negotiations to begin.

May 12, 1980

Notice from the Union to the Membership

"There will be a special union meeting to discuss, amend and ratify the final contract draft to be presented to the administration . . . Our first meeting [with management] will be on Tuesday, May 13th at 9:00 a.m."

Letters to All NHC Staff and Showalter from Mejia

Six weeks after Mejia received an interim proposal from the union, his response came. He used the union's interim proposal as the basis for not negotiating.

"The proposed contract [the interim proposal from AFSCME] did not contain issues which in every contract need to be discussed, IE, wages, leaves, etc. In short the proposed agreement was incomplete . . . "

"El Rio management does neither accept the interim contract as proposed, nor negotiate any of its component parts as proposed since that would interfere with the negotiating on a more definitive arrangement, in a manner consistent with management's conception of the welfare of patients, employees, and the Center itself."

Management took the position that they could not negotiate with an interim agreement. Because of this, management called off that day's scheduled meeting with the union. The basic ground rules, which would have been discussed, could not be incorporated in any contract language. If management had met with the union, they would not have gone into contract negotiations until after the ground rules had been established.

Therefore, employees viewed management's decision with great suspicion.

May 20, 1980

From the Minutes of El Rio Union's Monthly Meeting

El Rio employees learned about the status of negotiations and that the union's interim proposal never intended to represent a complete contract; they had been designed to protect employee rights which had suffered abuse. The Negotiation Committee presented the union's full package of proposals. The issues were discussed, amended and voted upon.

In her Chief Steward's Report, Tovar stressed the importance of the role of the Shop Steward. AFSCME planned to provide stewards' training, on May 31 for all the new stewards.

Warren reported that she would begin work on a new newsletter which could be put out every two weeks. Union members received encouragement to contribute articles. Warren understood that the grapevine, "unfortunately -- not always helpful," but the NHCEO had a good way to disseminate information through their newsletter. A critical need for a union newsletter existed because of the need to have accurate and trustworthy information.

Union dues became something of a problem. Management contended they could not deduct dues from employees' paychecks and without a contract and the union could not compel them to make those deductions. In the interim, employees were encouraged to pay voluntary dues directly to the union. Although this proved burdensome, many if not most of the employees voluntarily contributed. Additionally, the employees held a fund-raising event to help the union defray some of the costs of AFSCME's representation.

The employees selected Alicia Tovar to represent them at an international meeting of AFSCME to be held in Anaheim, California. They also decided to hold a raffle to raise money to help pay for Tovar's flight.

About May 19, 1980

About a week after receiving Mejia's letter rejecting negotiations until management received the full union proposal, management attained a full union proposal.

No counter proposals went from management to the union. Negotiations still did not begin in any serious manner.

May 28, 1980

First labor/management meeting held at the El Rio library-conference room from 2:00 p.m. until about 3:00 p.m. The only topics discussed involved what ground rules could be discussed in future meetings. Two future dates were set.

June 1980 - Sluggish Negotiations & "Communication Committee"

Week of June 2, 1980

Union Newsletter

The union requested that members voluntarily give dues of $8.50 per month or 3.92 every two weeks. This was changed to a sliding fee in time so that higher wage earners paid more actual dollars than the lower wage earners. However, a cap limited the maximum amount any employee might pay.

Optimistically reported, the first negotiation session had been scheduled for May 28.

Also scheduled was further discussion of ground rules on June 16 and then actual discussions of the contract on June 19.

The newsletter also presented an article on the activities of the board activities. The board had terminated representation from the Southern Arizona Hospital Association and from the Steelworkers. The union man who had represented the Steelworkers and who had voted with Baldenegro on the by-law changes, who apparently allowed his name to be used by the Chicano Consortium, finally resigned from the board. Why the Steelworkers were dropped from the list of potential board members remained unknown. No other union representative was asked to join the board. Although several of the board members claimed membership in the Chicano Consortium, this organization received another slot on the board.

June 16 & 17, 1980

Management cancelled meetings to discuss ground rules.

June 19, 1980

The schedule called for the Negotiating Committee to meet with management at 5:00 p.m.

The scheduled meeting for this date cancelled by management.

The union employees hold a Negotiating Committee meeting to discuss the situation.

June 21, 1980

After only one hour of negotiations on ground rules on May 28, the first real labor/management negotiations took place in the El Rio auditorium. This meeting only dealt with the ground rules and established a target date of September 1, 1980 for the completion of negotiations. Mr. Mejia planned to come back to negotiations on June 24 with administration's positions on press relations.

Management named six administrators as their spokespersons. Among the six, three men, Anibal Mejia, Jorge Garcia or Bob Snyder, would always be present. At the end of each meeting the next chief spokesperson would be designated. Bob Snyder, who served as Marketing Director, had as his prime responsibility the enlisting of major HMO groups. Management hoped to protect their concern governing the growth of the HMO at the negotiations but Snyder ultimately came to few negotiation sessions.

Jon Showalter served as the chief spokesperson for the union. Showalter turned out to be an exceptional negotiator. Warren remembered Showalter as,

"...a great leader and negotiator. We had many well thought out meetings in the original contract negotiations."

Larsen, impressed with Showalter's great skill at the negotiation's table, contrasted this skill with the vindictive and ineffectual negotiating done primarily by the personnel manager, Jorge Garcia. But Showalter had experience while Garcia had just started.

In the early days, Garcia tried to hang tough but instead demonstrated ineffectiveness. He made threatening statements such as telling the union negotiating team that no laws mandated management provide lunch breaks. Those types of statements passed from the union team or observers to the rank and file and tended to increase the will of the employees. When he made statements like that, the union at times picked up new members.

Later in the Negotiating Committee, Warren showed effectiveness when advocating improved working conditions for the physicians. At one point in the negotiations, management wanted physicians to assume responsibility for patients at several Tucson hospitals. Management saw this as an additional marketing device to enroll more HMO patients. This totally unrealistic proposal left no time for the physicians to take care of clinic responsibilities. The first mission of the clinic remained to provide quality preventive health care to the patients in the hopes of keeping people out of hospitals. Additionally, the government's financial contributions were based on 3200 patients encounters per year per FTE physician. On the issue of patient encounters, i.e., internal medicine required far more time per patient visit in contrast to the time spent for most pediatric visits.

All discussion involving staffing levels became heavily contested at the negotiations. Another issue of importance to the physicians involved malpractice tails. Malpractice tails protected physicians for several years after leaving employment at El Rio.

June 24, 1980

Management cancelled a labor/management negotiations scheduled meeting. In a letter from Mejia to Showalter, provider contracts are extended until the completion of the negotiation. This becomes an Interim Agreement.

June 25, 1980

Union Minutes

The employees received their first report from an AFSCME International Convention. The status of contract negotiations and a steward's report also received attention.

Although more negotiations had been scheduled, only two meetings had actually been held. At those meetings, only ground rules were discussed and even this had not been completed. The employees were informed of a union affidavit claiming that management had not been bargaining in good faith.

Management had forcefully announced that they did not have the time nor resources to do the secretarial work. The union in turn offered to do all that work. Realizing the mistake they made, since the secretarial work reflected what had been negotiated, Mejia backed off and in the end agreed that half of the time the union could do the secretarial work and the other half of the time management would provide that service.

Six new employees joined the union.

Patient care issues and the harassment of employees were discussed. Some entry level employees believed that patient care issues and the union were related. Elenez, who believed this maintained:

"We could get compensated instead of punished for patient care."

Some employees began to talk about a possible walk out if management did not begin "Good Faith Bargaining."

June 26, 1980

Mr. Mejia informed the Board of Directors that he established an "Employee Communication Committee" for the purpose of ". . . improving communications and employee morale." He claimed that employees could elect members to this committee.

June 27, 1989

Termination Letter from Dr. Vivian to Dr. Wolfe

Vivian terminated Wolfe's employment at El Rio and based it on incompatible philosophies. Wolfe, however, believed that it had not been her philosophy but her actions as a whistle blower that caused her termination. Vivian's letter gave his rationales for the termination:

"Your philosophy is not compatible with ours and has been a disruptive force and has not assisted us in reaching our goals."

"It has become blatantly apparent to me that you feel that the goals and objectives of the management of El Rio Health Center are inconsistent with your objectives. In spite of many conversations in an effort to explain to you why and how we must make the decisions that have been made you seem to ignore the rationale.

Your philosophy is incompatible with ours and has been a disruptive force and has not assisted us in reaching our objectives.

I, therefore, am notifying you that 30 days from this date your services will no longer be required at El Rio Health Center."

Wolfe believed that the administration had made sure that they went through the proper channel to terminate her employment. She later remembered that one day Mejia invited her into his office. There he complained that she did not work as a good team member but he had no complaints about how she handled the patients. This experience upset Wolfe.

Isabel Abalos remembered,

"She [Ave Wolfe] was fired for caring too much about her patients and staff. People in the suite were unhappy when Dr. Wolfe got fired. But they felt that there was nothing that they could do. Everyone was wondering who would be next. People were afraid of losing their job."

Transcription of Negotiations Agreement at the AFSCME Office

The union formally presented its proposals and management formally presented its proposals.

Ground rules were established dealing with target dates, substitutions of negotiators, locations of negotiations, frequency of negotiations, observers and press releases.

Some target dates were set: The first complete draft of the concluded Labor/Management Agreement should be finished and on the table by September 1, 1980.

One particular agreement dealt with the pace of negotiations and read as follows:

"J. Showalter: It's been agreed that we will negotiate a minimum of five hours per week. That on July 25th if either side is dissatisfied with the pace of negotiations this schedule will be re-negotiated. In addition, it is agreed that any meeting that is set by management at a time such that employees of this negotiating committee are required to be in attendance at work that their job assignment with pay will be to be at this negotiation session.

A. Mejia: I concur with that."

Management and the union further agreed upon no press releases by either party unless the negotiations reached an impasse or until completion of negotiations. Both parties defined "an impasse" as the place where an agreement could not be reached.

The implications of the "memorandum of understanding" were that each party had the authority and power to negotiate. Mejia had the authority to negotiate on behalf of the Board of Directors and Showalter had the authority to negotiate on behalf of the El Rio employees.

Week of June 30, 1980

Union Newsletter

This edition reported only information about the status of negotiations, schedules for future negotiations, the temporary agreement between the union and management on the providers' contracts and the results of a union raffle.

About the End of June 1980

In response to the claim that Wolfe's patients were not going back to the county hospital, Wolfe wanted to show that some of her patients, with serious health problems, had their care at El Rio terminated. To do this, Wolfe showed some medical records of those ill patients to Mejia.

July 1980 - Anti-Union Tactics & Lay Offs

July in Tucson, Arizona is blistering hot. But the weather could not compete with the increasing heat of anger that festered and permeated the clinic in this year's July.

Early July 1980.

Scheduled negotiations again cancelled by management. Jorge Garcia offered July 4 for the next negotiations.

Larsen accepted. When she saw the look on Garcia's face, Larsen realized she had been offered a holiday date. Still, she stood firm. Instead, Garcia backed down.

Although the union negotiations team saw Garcia as being less than competent, Reece, his subordinate, thought of him as a "quick study," that he learned quickly. Garcia's performance did improve in later negotiations.

July 3, 1980

Letter from Mejia to Showalter Re.: Janitor/Supervisor.

Mejia notified Showalter that the Janitor/Supervisor resigned. He indicates that management wanted to reassess the position and to put it out of the bargaining unit. Showalter agreed and Ray Figueroa received that promotion which made him ineligible to stay in the union.

Letter from Larsen, Union Chair and Showalter, Director of AFSCME to the San Francisco Regional Director for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

"Please be informed that, pursuant to Section 8(d)(B) of the NLRA as amended by Public Law 93-360, 93 Congress 2nd Session, this is to provide you 30 days' notice of the existence of a dispute. AFSCME and the El Rio Neighborhood Health Center, . . . are now engaged in bargaining for an initial agreement for the unit defined in case number 28-rc-3768.

Sam Franklin of your Phoenix office has been in contact on several occasions and is aware of our present situation."

About the beginning of July 1980

Statement by Wolfe entitled "My Philosophy of Medical Care"

This statement outlined Wolfe's philosophy and her long-term aims and objectives.

"Philosophy:

I. Foremost is Quality Care, combining Knowledge of Medicine and Humaneness.

II. Comprehensive Services under One Roof

Preventive as well as Episodic Care

Careful Follow-up of Problems

Continuity of Care

Health Education and Home Health Services

III. Equal care for all, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, sexual preference, handicap, economic level, or any other factor.

IV. Physicians on Salary at Health Centers.

V. Community Control with Community Concern

VI. Cost Containment and Fee Collections if they are not discriminatory against the poor, and if the hardship caused to the patients does not create new health hazards for them.

VII. Obeying Laws, Guidelines, By-Laws, Standards -- as set by Government, Agencies, Professional Societies, and Local Institutions and Boards -- if they do not interfere with good patient care and confidentiality.

VIII. Problem Oriented Records and Confidentiality of Records.

IX. Extending one's practice, where possible, beyond the examining room and into the community -- to seek root causes of illness, health hazards in the community, and disease surveillance.

X. Fair Labor Practices for Personnel

Equal respect for all levels of health workers.

Allowing personnel a voice in decisions related to patient care.

Encouraging and utilizing people's strengths to the advantage of the whole.

XI. When patients are unable to advocate for themselves (children, retarded, mentally ill, etc.) we should, to the best of our ability, be their advocate as well as their provider.

Long-term Aims and Objectives:

I. Self-determination for all peoples in health and political governance.

II. Step wide development of a Health Care System for the U.S.A. that will allow

all people within its boundaries to have access to good care at a price reasonable to their income. HMO's are one step in the right direction.

Many of El Rio's physicians and nurse practitioners signed a statement agreeing with Wolfe's philosophy, aims and objectives. They recognized the bogus charge and asked that since Wolfe's philosophy cause her termination, where did she go wrong so that other health professionals would not make the same mistakes.

Seven physicians and six family nurse practitioners signed this statement. Although most were union members, a few of the signatures came from medical professionals who chose to stay out of the union.

Warren believed that Wolfe's employment was terminated because Wolfe became ". . . too outspoken an advocate for patients."

Early July 1980

El Rio abolished the employee classification of Certified Nurse Midwife and notified Leigh Roth, an active union member, of her termination. Two days before Roth's dismissal later in July, El Rio placed a help-wanted advertisement for an obstetrical-gynecological nurse practitioner. While the title differed, the duties of that job remained essentially the same. Showalter pointed this out in a press interview. The union fought Roth's dismal and finally had to bring the case to the courts.

Unlike Ava Wolfe who served in the NHSC, Leigh Roth participated heavily in union activities. Her prospects for a favorable outcome looked better than Wolfe's.

July 7, 1980

First Edition of Newsletter by Management

One article reported that Ray Figueroa had been promoted as of July 7. This promotion put him out of the bargaining unit. The article read,

"Also in line for congratulations, Ray Figueroa. His former position was Custodian/Driver; now he will be supervisor of Environmental Services. His promotion became effective July 7, 1980."

All sorts of speculation spread among some union members about this promotion. One prominent opinion saw management advancing Figueroa to reduce the visibility of an active Hispanic man within the union. Before long, Figueroa left his job at El Rio.

July 8, 1980

Letter from Leigh Roth, CNM (Certified Nurse Midwife) to Donald Vivian, MD.

Roth expressed her dismay but still expressed her intent to pursue due process in regards to her termination. Excerpts of Roth's response to Dr. Vivian:

Dear Dr. Vivian;

On July 8, you came into my office and told me that:

• Your response to my grievance was unchanged
• You asked me to contact Dr. . . . from A.M.C.,[Arizona Medical Center] as he wished to speak to me.

I will meet with Dr. . . . , but I have serious reservations about the outcome of this meeting. My reservations are based on the following:

--Why are you simultaneously telling me that you are terminating me, but at the same time trying to get me privileges at A.M.C.? These are mutually incompatible plans. I was hired to see patients in the clinic, and delivery services are a supplementary function, not the primary issue of my existence here.

The Tucson Nurse-Midwives have tentatively dealt with the issue of privileges at A.M.C. and were told that they would be able to delivery only in the birthing room, if they did receive privileges.

-- How would the patients be routed there?

-- If the patients elected to deliver with me, then I would have to take calls 24 hours per week, 7 days a week. This is not feasible.

In short, even if I was to obtain privileges, which would take time, a program would have to be set up for our patients, which would also take time. Many issues and problems would have to be solved. How can this be done if I am not even on staff at El Rio?

I intend to meet with Dr. . . . , however, I do not understand how it can be fruitful if I am losing my job in two weeks.

Letter from Larsen, Union Chair to Vivian, Medical Director

Larsen went directly to the Medical Director and tried to change Wolfe and Roth's employment status through discussion with Vivian. When that did not work, Larsen wrote to Vivian with the slim hope that he might reconsider his decisions. Since Wolfe had not taken an active role in the union because of NHSC status, and since her colleagues, many employees in general and her patients regarded her so highly, Larsen hoped that Wolfe might be retained. Roth, however, could be formally defended by the union.

"Dear Dr. Vivian:

In our conversation last Thursday, I had expressed the hope that you would re-evaluate the termination of Leigh Roth and Dr. Eva Wolfe. I would like to expand on why I believe that reversing the decision to terminate is prudent.

To maintain competitiveness with other HMOs which are growing in this community, it seems critical to be able to provide optimal services. Special efforts should be directed toward keeping all our good providers so that we can minimize stress on our staff. At a time when both Pediatrics and O.B./Gyn will be depleted, the problems should not be exaggerated by terminating our physician and midwife, who have provided excellent, cost efficient, quality health care.

There appears to be some ambiguity regarding Dr. Wolfe's rights in terms of her termination. As a result of our conversation, I was under the impression that the termination was based on El Rio management's right not to renew their contract with Dr. Wolfe. However, on further inquiries, I have learned that the only agreement between Dr. Wolfe and the clinic involved a Memorandum of Agreement which stipulated that Dr. Wolfe was subject to the guidelines in the Personnel Handbook. If Dr. Wolfe has rights under the Personnel Handbook, then of course, they should prevail. If, however, she does not have those rights, then it might seem prudent for the other National Health Service Corp. personnel to re-evaluate their position and security with El Rio.

In our conversation, you expressed an interest in providers and other staff discussing problems with you. Yet the example of Dr. Wolfe's termination suggests the potential penalty for disagreement with you. Employees generally do not feel free to discuss problems, if indeed, they perceive that their jobs are threatened by doing so.

On Thursday, we did not discuss the problem of supervisory chain of command but it requires some mention. It had been brought to my attention that neither the Chief of Staff, Pediatric Committee Chairperson nor the Chief of the O.B./Gyn were consulted prior to termination. Can this be so? If this did happen, it would seem to encourage employee alienation at a time that we can least afford it.

I sincerely hope that you will reconsider the terminations of both Leigh Roth and Dr. Ava Wolfe. They are willing and capable employees who have much to offer the patients of El Rio. In contrast, their terminations will only bring staff shortages, increased stress and a further erosion of employee confidence in the motives of management and these will adversely affect how patients and prospective H.M.O. groups will view El Rio.

July 9, 1980

Minutes of Negotiations

Negotiations resulted in minimal agreements.

"Article I: It is expressly accepted, agreed and understood that management and the union approach negotiations that being a Neighborhood Health Center dependent upon a multitude of grants and other tenuous funding sources; that each side agrees that in the area of economic items, the proposal will not supersede the amount of available sources."

"Article II: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 449 is hereby recognized as exclusive representative organization for the purpose of collective bargaining . . . "

"Article III: Employee rights. Employees have the right to join and remain members of the union without any form of harassment . . . "

About July 10, 1980

Letter from Dr. Warren, Director of Medical Education, to Dr. Vivian, Medical Director

Warren notified Vivian in writing of her ". . . strong objections to and concern for your 'termination' of Dr. Ava Wolfe and Leigh Roth." Her letter expressed the feelings and concerns of many of the El Rio employees.

"Dr. Wolfe has been a vital person in our teaching program for medical students at El Rio. In the two of her evaluations by students that I have so far received from the Dept. of Family & Community Medicine, she was described as a teacher and practitioner with 'unbridled enthusiasm,' thoroughness, remarkable concern for patients, and excellent current knowledge of her field . . . "

"Leigh Roth has also been a consistently enthusiastic student teacher as a midwife. The students have consistently praised her enthusiasm for teaching, extra efforts, and the uniqueness that she gives to their exposure to OB-Gynecology."

"At a time in which we are already seriously understaffed, it makes no sense at all to me to lose such valuable members of our teaching as well as patient care staff . . . "

July 11, 1980

Letter from Kathy McGlone, Health Educator, to Dr. Vivian and Mejia

McGlone wrote concerning programs that might be in jeopardy with the termination of Ava Wolfe, M.D. and Leigh Roth, CNM.

"Dr. Wolfe has been teaching several parts of our diabetes class series: Complications of Diabetes, and Pathophysiology and Treatment of Diabetes. Her experience in diabetes, sincere interest in education, ability to relate well with patients and genuine concern for them will be a great loss to the patients and the center. With her termination and the resulting overload of patients on the other providers, I see great difficulty in finding a replacement for her. I hope you can find some way to keep her on the staff.

Leigh Roth has been coordinating the childbirth education classes as well as teaching many of them. Preparation for labor and delivery can ease the woman's experience and be cost-effective in that the prepared woman often does not need anesthesia, for example. In that we have had approximately 50 deliveries a month, there is a tremendous need for these educational services.

Much effort has gone into making the childbirth education program successful over the years. I think that the termination of Ms. Roth may jeopardize it. I urge that you continue to employ this very capable teacher and midwife."

Minutes of a Meeting of the El Rio Health Care Providers

"1. Mr. Guzman gave the staff a briefing and update on how our collection policy is working. In general we are doing better across the board.

2. Mr. Mejia spoke about disenrollment policies and the establishment of a personnel communication committee. There was a great deal of discussion on the disenrollment program. He asked for constructive suggestions which he would take under consideration.

3. Dr. Freeman and Dr. Kallal made two motions. One was that Ms. Roth's the nurse midwife and Dr. Wolfe's contracts be renewed. The second motion was that it be recommended the staff not take any extra work load which may occur with the departure of Ms. Roth and Dr. Wolfe. The first motion was passed by a narrow margin. The second was defeated.

4. Time ran out and the election for the new chief of staff was postponed until next week."

Saturday, July 12, 1980

Some negotiation resulting in agreements dealing with union security and recognition of union stewards occurred.

About the Middle of July

In response to management's claim of a poor financial situation, one of the physicians explored those assertions by looking at expenses for the last six or seven months using El Rio financial reports. That physician came to the conclusion that management had indeed spent more than the previous year, but those expenditures benefitted neither the patients nor the employees.

From financial reports showing the activity for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980, El Rio established three new management positions: one Director of Health Promotional Services, and two temporary "Administration Graduate Intern" positions. The Director of Health Promotional Services meant an additional $24,000 spent in 1980. Of the two graduate interns, one assumed the responsibility to establish an "Employee Newsletter." Many employees considered this another attempt at union busting.

Legal fees, according to the financial statements jumped from $2,596 at the end of fiscal year June 30, 1979 to $12,148 at the end of fiscal year June 30, 1980. Patient care costs rose while services declined: A viable prenatal and delivery program disintegrated, waiting time increased, inappropriate disenrollments, and transfers to the county indigent system. Even with all the onerous changes, the cost per physician-patient encounter increased 22% from June 30, 1979 to June 30, 1980.

Finally, the actions of management put The National Health Service Corps in jeopardy. The donated services of these health professionals amounted to $211,701 in 1979.

Financial Report for 1979-1980

This report, based on work conducted by an outside accounting firm, discussed financial expectations coming from El Rio's relationship with the National Health Service Corp. providers. Generally, El Rio received a billing from the NHSC and then sought to obtain a waiver for the services of the medical professionals under the NHSC program. This financial report documented the amount usually expected to be waived. The financial report cautioned that the usual waivers had not yet been obtained:

"Although the Center has obtained waivers as to payment for prior periods, there is no assurance that a waiver will be obtained for this billing, accordingly it has been regarded as a liability at November 30, 1980 . . . "

The monies saved by the use of NHSC physicians for 1980 came to $279,907.

July 14, 1980

Negotiations planned to be held at 5:30 p.m. were again cancelled by management. The union Negotiation Committee began to put together an affidavit charging unfair labor practices.

Affidavit - NLRB Cases 6055 and 6061

This affidavit reported that management, at its first discussion with department heads on the status of negotiations, expressed the belief that the contract could not be negotiated by the September deadline. The union often became aware of the discussions that took place at management meetings because several mid-level management personnel felt sympathetic to the union and were not particularly happy with top management.

With the aid of mid-level management, union members on the Negotiating Committee learned, in confidential conversations, that management described the negotiations as a "circus" and ridiculed the union's accomplishments at the negotiating table.

The affidavit further indicated that the El Rio management had undermined the negotiating process by giving the impression that the bargaining unit was impotent. The affidavit claimed that management displayed a pattern of procrastination, showed significant disregard for agreements reached at the bargaining table, and diminished the bargaining unit by changing the job description for a member of the Negotiating Committee.

"Employees Communication Committee" Established

It was learned somewhat later, that plans for an "Employees Communication Committee" had been presented by Mejia.

When the union learned about the plans for the "Employees Communication Committee," Larsen phoned Mejia expressing concern that this might be an attempt to undermine the union. Mejia assured Larsen that he would forward a copy of the guidelines specifying the function of the committee. This had not yet been done by the time a later affidavit was filed.

The "Employee Communication Committee" held only a few meetings and then folded. When questioned years later, many employees did not know of or could not remember its existence.

Virginia Bishop, who did remember Mejia's "Employee Communication Committee" thought of the committee as management's attempt to defuse conflict between the employees.

Week Ending July 14, 1980

Union Newsletter

This edition of the newsletter covered the status of negotiations: negotiation observers, negotiation substitutions, terminations and membership participation.

The areas of the contract where some progress had been made at the negotiation table involved, "Purpose and Intent of Union & Employer," "Recognition of the Bargaining Unit," "Union Rights of Employees," "Definitions of Supervisors," "Grievance Procedures," "Work status changes," and "Stewards." The newsletter pointed out times and places that employees could meet with the staff or members of the Negotiating Committee to get further information or to deal with questions or problems that may have arisen.

Employees were then invited to participate in the negotiation process by being "Observers." Several employees did take up that offer and showed up at some of the negotiation sessions.

The union newsletter offered potential places at the table for substitutes in case one of the members of the regular union negotiating team could not be present. Such an opening rarely existed as the negotiating team was very committed to the process.

The newsletter mentioned the terminations of Wolfe and of Roth. Although there had been terminations before, many employees became increasingly disturbed by firings so the loss of these two employees hit hard.

To Gloria Gonzales, Wolfe's termination came as a shock. Like many other employees, she thought Wolfe's termination was politically motivated. Gonzales had a strong desire to maintain her integrity but the firing of Wolfe left her in fear.

This union newsletter, as earlier editions had done before, again encouraged members to participate in the activities of the union.

July 14 and July 15, 1980

Dr. Wolfe, met with Mejia about plans to terminate her employment. She brought with her stacks of medical records to show him how patients, contrary to administrative directives, had been disenrolled in the middle of treatment.

July 15, 1980

Special Union Meeting at the AFSCME Office

A guest speaker, Jacqueline Wohl an attorney from the NLRB, spoke on "your rights under the NLRB." AFSCME had brought in this expert to deal with the possibility of elevating conflicts because of non negotiations. It became important to keep as many employees as possible informed about the growing problems and the potential solutions.

July 15, 1980

Report entitled "Negotiation Perspective"

In an attempt to keep employees informed about the current events, the union laid out its position concerning the extent and nature of the tentative agreements that had been reached. While growing obvious that management had not negotiated in good faith, the union did not, at this time, push that point with the membership. Instead they just informed the membership on the poor status of negotiations by delineating what little had been accomplished.

"1. A Ground Rule for Negotiations

It has been understood by both sides that negotiations will be conducted for a minimum of five hours per week. On July 25, 1980, each side will evaluate the progress and pace of the proceedings, and if there is dissatisfaction on either side, the schedule will be altered to meet the September 1st deadline.

ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO HAVE A COMPLETED DRAFT OF THE FINAL CONTRACT.

At this time there should be an obligation on the part of the Board of Directors to have read and understood what has been agreed to by both sides.

2. Recognition of the Union

AFSCME, Local 449, is recognized as EXCLUSIVE representative organization for the purpose of bargaining in respect to pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment. It has been agreed that negotiations shall be accomplished between the Executive Director of El Rio (or designee) and the designee of Local 449.

3. The following has been agreed to concerning Union Security

An official representative of the Union has access to certain pre-determined work areas to discuss grievances and other matters pertaining to the union.

Employees of El Rio Santa Cruz NHC have the right to join and have active participation in the union. It is also agreed that as members of the union, they are free from harassment, intimidation, coercion, threats of force or violence or reprisals by the management of El Rio.

No one shall be denied a promotion or employment because of union membership or non-membership.

The union presently has ten stewards plus a chief steward. During negotiations, management propose having one steward representing all members of the bargaining unit at El Rio. The compromise resulted in the agreement that there would be six stewards plus one chief steward with a total bank of 125 hours per year to investigate and process grievances.

The above is a series of explanations concerning, in part, what has been discussed and agreed to by our negotiating committee and the management of El Rio Santa Cruz NHC. It should not be construed that the preceding is in any way, shape or form a complete synopsis of what has been agreed to in the negotiations."

July 17, 1980

Help Wanted Advertisement in the Arizona Daily Star for an OB/GYN Nurse Practitioner at El Rio

Roth, the OB Nurse Mid-Wife, stated that for all purposes, the job description in that advertisement matched the work she had done and the credentials that she had. Roth firmly believed that she was terminated because of her union activities and that management conspired to lay her off only to re-advertise her position under a slightly different title.

Letter from Shirley Fish, Former Accounting Manager to El Rio Management

In negotiations, the management team claimed that it could not utilize scarce accounting resources to collect union dues for the union. The previous accounting manager, Shirley Fish, who did not like unions wrote to Mejia about the payroll deduction. She asserted support for the union:

"...as a management person, I am basically against a union, since I believe such organizations to be divisive . . . In the case of El Rio, however, I have reluctantly concluded that constructive dialogue is impossible . . . therefore, I believe that the employees had little choice but to vote for representation by an outside agency which could invoke the law while lessening chances for reprisals . . . in support of my belief that in this case the union is the only hope for justice to be achieved for the employees at El Rio, I would certainly feel that automatic deductions should be supported . . .

Cordially,

Shirley E. Fish

(Sister M. Baptiste Fish)"

July 18, 1980

This was another day where management cancelled negotiations.

One of the administrative employees, who was unable to be in the union, believed that the El Rio administration was stalling. To her it seemed like a tactic to keep the union out. While this employee kept this opinion to herself, it was also obvious to others.

The first unfair labor charges drawn up indicated that from May 24 until July 18 there had been only 15 hours of negotiations. Negotiations remained fixed on little more than ground rules. The charges would be filed three days later on the 21st of July.

Wolfe's Letter Given to the Administration

Dr. Wolfe, trying to determine her job status at El Rio, sent a letter to the El Rio management requesting to know if they planned terminating, reinstating or putting her on probation. This would be the final communication before Wolfe took outside action.

"To whom it may concern:

I have signed two extensions of time to the administration of El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center . . . to allow them ample time to consider my grievance before informing me whether they still plan to terminate me, or whether they plan to reinstate me or place me on probation.

The first statement was handed to Mr. Mejia on Friday, July 11, and allowed him 24 more hours after an interview we planned for Monday evening July 14, 1980. The second statement was handed to Mr. Mejia on Tuesday, July 15, to allow another extension until the end of Friday, July 18, 1980.

Today is July 18, 1980, and I stopped by administration to let them know I would be in the building and easily available when they were ready to give me their final answer. The secretaries said that Dr. Vivian and Mr. Mejia were not going to be here all day . . . one said she did not know where they were, another said she would not call them though she did know where they were. I told them I wanted Dr. Vivian and Mr. Mejia informed that I am holding them to today's time limit legally, and that I want them fully forewarned of that fact. The secretaries still refused to call them.

I want it on record"

1) That I have been more than lenient in granting the two time extensions.

2) That I did what I could to remind them that today was their last day, and to forewarn them that I consider tonight to be their legal deadline.

3) That I in no way intend to implicate the secretaries in any way. They have been more than kind to me, and have their instructions which they are obligated to follow.

I expect my answer by midnight tonight.

My home phone is . . . "

"My home address . . . "

July 21, 1980

Meeting of the El Rio Health Care Providers

A motion passed with no opposing votes that "Ms. Roth and Dr. Wolfe's contract be renewed." Roth and Wolfe had been unanimously supported by the health care professional who attended the meeting.

From J. Freeman, MD, Chief of Staff to Members of Peer Review Committee

"The by-laws, Article 5, Section 3, provide for the Chief of Staff to appoint peer review committees to evaluate the performance of any member of the medical staff being involuntarily terminated. Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Roth have been terminated, and are presently going through the grievance procedure. I am hereby constituting peer review committees for the two of them, which will be charged with submitting reports evaluating the performance of Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Roth as health care providers . . . "

About July 21, 1980

One employee expressed her concern that a bogus reason had been used for terminating Roth's employment:

"...she [Roth] would not deliver babies unless a physician was in the delivery room. However, the next day's newspaper had a help wanted advertisement for an obstetrical gynecological nurse practitioner listing her job duties which excluded delivery."

Several months later, an employee observed,

"The physician filed a grievance with the neighborhood health center's grievance committee and lost. The nurse-midwife filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board and won."

Memo to All Union Stewards Regarding "Employee Communication Committee"

The union leadership at El Rio had concerns that management intended to use the "Employee Communication Committee" as a tool to wean employees away from the union. Union officers notified the AFSCME staff and then put out a memo to all the stewards. The Memo said:

"As you already know, there is presently under consideration by the administration of the El Rio NHC a proposal to establish an 'employees communication committee.' This committee would have limited and selective employee participation.

The exact method for selecting those employees participating on the committee, and the exact purpose and function(s) of the committee have not been delineated and finalized.

If and when the 'employees' communication committee' actually comes into existence, the union will have to act swiftly to insure that the interests of the membership are protected.

Attached you will find the views which we have heard expressed by some of the membership for and against participating on this committee . . . "

Advantages in union members participating in management's

"Employee Communication Committee"

"We as a union, can use the communication committee to our

advantage in the following ways:

1. By insuring that the majority of the participants on that committee be union members, thereby having first hand knowledge of what decisions are being contemplated by the administration, thus enabling a swift response by the union to safeguard our interests.

2. We must be aware of the fact that if we, as union members, do not actively pursue positions on the communications committee, we cannot guarantee that the people who are subsequently placed on that committee will be "pro-union" with our interests in mind.

3. Union member participation would insure that union rights are not infringed upon.

Advantages in union members boycotting management's

'Employee Communication Committee'

1. Some of the members see the communication committee as a deliberate step to undermine the union by effectively associating some of the employees at El Rio NHC with the management and the supervisors.

2. By having only 'selective' employee participation on this committee, accusations of favoritism and feelings of distrust would circulate in the bargaining unit causing a decrease in the sense of comradery and unity that now exists in the membership.

3. The communication committee could begin to function in areas that are properly under the jurisdiction of the union.

4. In demanding on the membership's time and resources which are already being taxed.

Union guidelines for members of the "Communications Committee" do not discuss negotiable items. Negotiable items are items that management should be discussing with the union at the bargaining table. Negotiable items are anything having to do with wages,

hours of work, fringe benefits, and conditions of employment.

You can discuss PATIENT CARE ISSUES, the PACE OF NEGOTIATIONS, the LACK OF NEGOTIATIONS, the CENTER'S FINANCIAL SITUATION, and MANAGEMENT DECISIONS.

About the 22 July

Larsen Filed Charges with the NLRB on Behalf of the Union

Showalter had been away on vacation in the Philippine Islands attending his brother's wedding. Many of the union members believed that management thought the employees incapable of moving forward without Showalter, so in his absence management stopped all negotiations. The union officers with the support of the membership moved to break the log jam.

The charges asserted that El Rio management had not been bargaining in good faith. It also charged management with restraining and coercing employees in their exercise of their NLRB Section 7 and 8 rights. Section 7 & 8 stated that employees shall have the right of collective bargaining and employees shall be free from coercion.

Again About July 22, 1980

Union Membership's Open Letter

Although the union had no jurisdictional authority pertaining to Wolfe because she was a National Health Service Corp. physician, the overwhelming support she received from El Rio employees both in and outside of the bargaining unit left the union with no choice but to advocate on her behalf. This was done willingly in "AN OPEN LETTER" from the union membership.

"We employees of El Rio NHC do protest the recent 'terminations' of staff members Dr. Ava Wolfe and Nurse Midwife Leigh Roth. Although Dr. Wolfe is not a union member and has not been a participant in union contract or negotiating activities, her dismissal does affect those of us who are union members and employees. The manner in which the dismissals were carried out and the problems that are thereby created set a dangerous precedent as well as reflecting serious management and patient care problems.

The union membership is particularly concerned about the following issues:

1. Jobs and services at El Rio appear to be determined by political decisions rather than by the thoughtful development of comprehensive health care or sound economic considerations. (E.g. a nurse midwife is far less costly and more involved in patient education and preventive health care than the highly paid O.B. consultant who will allegedly replace our midwife.)

2. Dr. Wolfe was dismissed because of 'philosophical differences' in health care delivery. Whose philosophy is the medical director referring to? We, the employees at El Rio, strongly support Dr. Wolfe's philosophy and practice of health care which include:

• Enthusiastic preventive care and patient education
• Concern and devotion for patients
• Concern for the welfare of the community and delivery of services to under served people
• Meticulous follow-up of patients to assure continuity

of patient care

• Giving of her time and energy to patient care, far beyond the call of duty
• Respect for fellow workers
• Courage to speak up for the rights of patients and of fellow workers

3. It seems that a worker is being fired for having spoken up courageously for patient care concerns. Is freedom of speech not allowed at El Rio? Do we not have the right to voice our opinions or express our concerns? Are we each now vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal because of 'philosophical differences'?

4. By losing Dr. Wolfe and Leigh Roth, the health center will immediately become seriously understaffed. We will not be able to provide the services promised to our new patients and continue the quality of care appreciated by our old patients.

Potential new providers are already discouraged by the working conditions and job insecurity that they see at El Rio. The stress of work overload which will exist if another pediatrician and a nurse midwife leave threatens the morale and productivity of all present personnel.

5. Our rights as outlined by our current employee procedures have been intolerably ignored. Dr. Wolfe was never given the benefit of the formal order of termination procedures which include:

• Verbal warning or reprimand
• Written warning or reprimand
• Suspension
• Termination with clearly defined cause

6. Our supervisory 'chain of command' has been ignored by the Medical Director who did not inform either the Chief of Staff, Pediatric Committee Chairperson, or Chief of O.B. Gynecology of the proposed terminations, let alone seek these individuals' advice. Are these positions merely figureheads?

The Union members hereby register a formal complaint to the administration of El Rio and ask that these two staff members, Dr. Ava Wolfe and Leigh Roth, be immediately reinstated and that such autocratic and destructive actions stop. Our concerns are for high quality and cost-effective patient care, strong morale among qualified health workers, and a trustworthy supervisory and administrative staff . . . "

July 22, 1980

Letter from Roberto Levario, Graduate Student from Arizona State University, to El Rio Employees

This letter announced the new "Employee Newsletter." Levario wrote that he hoped this new newsletter could be started by July 30, 1980.

Management planned for the newsletters to come out semimonthly and serve as an "informational and/or clarification tool for all El Rio employees." The first edition came out August 8, 1980.

July 24, 1980

The union officially informed Mejia that they are dissatisfied with the pace of negotiations. The next negotiation session was scheduled for Wednesday, July 30.

Board of Directors, Executive Director's Report

Mejia gave the Executive Director's Report to the Board of Directors where he tried to encourage their attendance at the negotiations. The board Minutes quoted Mejia:

"I have committed to attempt to convince the Board to agree to a ratification date for the September meeting. Negotiations have continued and a new meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1980 at 5:30 p.m. There are positions available for three observers at the side of management. Board members are encouraged to attend."

Few of the board members ever attended any of the negotiation sessions. This was in direct contrast to the interest shown by the employees who regularly used their time at lunches or breaks to be observers at negotiations.

In the closed door executive session of the board meeting, issues discussed involved: the NLRB-unfair labor practice, the Executive Committee's action on employee terminations, and discussion on union negotiation strategy. How the union learned this has long since been forgotten. But many people, both in administration and on the board, had sympathy for the employees and/or the union and the information probably came from several of those secret friends.

Letter from Larsen, Union Chair to the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board in Phoenix, AZ.

"Enclosed please find an Unfair Labor Practice charge and four (4) copies filed by AFSCME, Local 449, against the El Rio Neighborhood Health Center. I have attached four (4) supporting affidavits to the charge."

Jorge Garcia received notification of these charges on August 1.

July 30, 1980

Once more, Mejia postponed another day's negotiations. He claimed the need to investigate the unfair labor charges of former employees.

July 31, 1980

NLRB Case No 28-CA-6023

The NLRB notified AFSCME that the unfair labor charges against El Rio had been filed. The charges claimed:

". . . the employer is bargaining in bad faith by its excess amount of appointments for negotiations sessions that it had cancelled, that it has broken the ground rules initially agreed upon by the parties, and by giving the impression at department head meetings that management has no intention of meeting the Sept. 1, 1980 deadline to complete bargaining."

Letter from Sidney F. Wolitzy (J.D.) to Barbara Warren, MD regarding Dr. Wolfe's Hearing

"This letter is to inform you that Dr. Ava Wolfe will have a hearing on her termination before the Grievance Committee of the El Rio board on August 7, 1980 at 6:00 p.m. As her attorney, I hereby request that you appear at that time to offer testimony on her behalf . . . "

Larsen and other employees received similar letters.

August 1980 - Grievances & No Negotiations

August 1, 1980

Garcia received notification of the unfair labor charges filed by Larsen on behalf of the officers and members of El Rio's union about three weeks after the last negotiation session. Garcia responded by informing the union that collective bargaining negotiations for an initial contract agreement were postponed indefinitely.

Unethical tactics caused many union members to increasingly disliked Garcia. Elenez believed that a wall existed between Garcia and his opponents. She thought, quite correctly, that he favored the appointment desk, which had no union members.

Many employees believed that Garcia and Baldenegro shared a friendship and that Garcia often worked on behalf of Baldenegro. This was only speculation but the rumor existed that Garcia conferred almost daily by phone with Baldenegro.

August 4, 1980

Letter from Herb Abrams, MD to the Members of the Grievance Committee of El Rio's Board of Directors

"I regret that I cannot appear before you in person today as I must attend a meeting of the Governor's Commission on the Environment in Sedona. However, I have asked Mr. Bill Maytorena to present this statement to you.

I speak to you as the founder and organizer and the original Project Director of the Center, and as an honorary lifetime member of the Board. More important, I speak to you as a friend. Like you, I have been deeply disturbed by the events of the past year, and I know we would all like to see the Center return to a state of harmony and stability so the health care providers can do their best for the patients. In this spirit, I speak to you on behalf of Dr. Ava Wolfe and of the Center.

I recently heard about the action to terminate the services of Dr. Wolfe who came to work at the Center in September 1978, on assignment from the National Health Service Corp.

I know Ava Wolfe to be a very competent doctor. She loves her patients and takes good care of them. In this day and age when so many of the medical profession are accused of self-interest, of being overly interested in money, here is a doctor who comes to the Center with the sole motivation of giving good medical care to people in need. She fulfills the highest ideals of the medical profession. Any of you could entrust the care of your children to Dr. Wolfe with complete trust and confidence.

Dr. Wolfe is totally devoted to the goal and objective of the El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center. This goal and objective is to provide high quality medical care to people of low income, people who cannot afford private care, people who have never had access to quality care.

I am aware that Dr. Wolfe has raised questions about certain policies of the present administration of the Center. She has expressed fears that the present policy of disenrollment of patients who are unable to pay may defeat the purpose for which the Center was established. I am sure that you as members of the Board must be concerned about this also. For we must always remember that the El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center was established ten years ago solely to provide medical care to the poor of this community. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of trust that the community and the government has placed in the Administration and Board of the Center.

I realize that these are troubling and painful questions, coming at a time when the Center faces severe financial problems. The National Health Service Corps personnel were assigned by the Center precisely because of these financial problems and because the Center serves a needy population. As the original Director of the Center, I faced similar problems and I know they are not easy to solve.

As Board members who have other jobs and can spend only a small amount of your time on Center business, you must depend on your employees for honest and competent work and for good advice. In Dr. Wolfe you have such a person, who thinks enough about you and the community to raise honest and constructive questions for the good of the Center and the Community. She is an excellent employee, one to be honored and supported. Those who seek to separate such an employee from her patients, indeed from you who need her, are taking an awful and dangerous responsibility.

Dr. Wolfe is a person of competence, of honesty, of high integrity, of peace and harmony, and of complete devotion and loyalty to the people that the Center serves.

I sincerely hope that you will find it possible to restore her to her work at the Center. In doing this, you will be faithful to the people of the community."

On August 15, Abrams attended Wolfe's hearing although he had originally thought he could not be present. How they conducted the hearing and its outcome proved to be a shocking and painful revelation for Abrams.

Wolfe had a reputation of being a caring and competent physician. In looking back at the events of those days, Valenzuela expressed her view of Wolfe as:

"a beautiful and caring person who worked very hard."

While impressed by Wolfe's professional skills, Patton saw Wolfe as a very fine person. Larsen saw Wolfe as a very special, extraordinary person who combined sensitivity and gentleness with firm conviction, ideal attributes for a pediatrician.

August 8, 1980

Letter from Mejia, Executive Director to Showalter, AFSCME Director

Mejia explained why he cancelled the July 30 meeting and referred to new charges made by employees laid off almost six months previous, Bill Bemis, Pat Patton and Gloria Monreal. Mejia's cancellations came even though the union played little or no role in those new charges. Two of the employees, Bemis and Patton, had been outside of the bargaining unit.

Mejia's letter contended:

"Due to your absence on vacation, I have not written to you previously regarding postponement of the bargaining session which had been scheduled for July 30, 1980.

On July 24, 1980, the eve of the scheduled bargaining session, we were first served with 8 (a) (1) charges by Mr. Bemis, Ms. Patton and Ms. Monreal. This filing made after having waited the six months, threatened to seriously disrupt the atmosphere of the bargaining and to promote hostility.

The filing of the charges appeared to me to make it unfeasible to continue the discussions at that particular time. This is particularly true since the charges were filed by the same lawyers who represent AFSCME and have represented AFSCME throughout our relationship with you, and moreover involve two people (Patton and Bemis) who were not even eligible for union membership.

The charges were unclear in an important respect, i.e., was AFSCME the organization whose information we allegedly sought to impede?

For all these reasons, we felt the meeting should be postponed until we had the opportunity to find out more about the circumstances of the charges, including their motivation and the questions they raise as to the good faith of the union."

Affidavit - NLRB Cases 6055 & 6061

Another reason given for terminating negotiations came when Mejia informed the union by letter that collective bargaining negotiations for an initial collective bargaining agreement were postponed due to the union's filing of unfair labor practices charges.

Management's "Employee Newsletter" - Volume 1, Number 1

The employees received the first edition of this new newsletter which had been sponsored by El Rio's management. Only six editions of this newsletter went to print. While some articles contained items of genuine interest, much of the newsletter reported fluff.

This management newletter began with "The new employee Newsletter . . . "

This first edition mentioned the NLRB charges but did not discuss any of the issues raised by the charges.

The young editor reported that the idea for the "Employee of the Month" came from the suggestion box. The concept of "Employee of the Month" continued for several months but it had no real effect, either positive or negative, on either the union or management's goals.

This first edition had a chatty type column that mentioned new employees and talked about birthdays and vacations. Under "New Hires," a new manager of the Accounting Department and a new accountant were named. Both stayed only a brief time at El Rio. Marsha Mason, MD, a pediatrician, was also mentioned under "New Hires." The two new members of the Accounting Department, both friendly to Larsen, stayed at El Rio for a very short time. Dr. Mason joined the union and remained at El Rio.

One useful article on Medicaid appeared in this first edition. The article pointed out that "Arizona is the only state in the USA which did not have a Medicaid program."

August 12, 1980

Memo - To: All Department Heads, From: Anibal Mejia, Executive Director, RE: Employee Communications Committee

Excerpts from the memo:

"In the mist of frustration, many people at the Center have proven to me that policies and administration procedures may and actually take a different direction than intended; that there should be a forum of communication for the people closest to patient concerns to exchange information directly to administration. This premiss underlines the fact that the Center with 200 employees and many outside providers is a very large system.

Communications in such a large system are intrinsically difficult and the creation of the Employee Communications Committee is intended to facilitate the process at the Center."

"It is intended that the creation and particularly the function of the Committee in conjunction with existing means (such as the General Staff Meeting) and new efforts (such as the Employee Newsletter) will facilitate and greatly enhance communications at the Center. Needless to say, the focus of the Committee is strictly communications and information. I can safely promise a problem solving orientation to the content of such communications as far as management is concerned, so that the General Staff Meeting can serve its purpose as a point of definitive clarification, not a debate of vital Center communications."

Mejias established the "Employee Communication Committee" as a tactic to open communications between the employees and the administration. Since Mejia attended only one or two meetings, Mejia lost further credibility.

August 14, 1980

Affidavit - NLRB Cases 6055 & 6061

On or about this date, Mejia informed the union that he would return to the bargaining table on the condition that the union withdrawal its unfair labor practice charges. The union's Negotiating Committee discussed possible actions pertaining to the unfair labor practices and decided to recommend contacting the NLRB federal mediator.

By this time the stress level throughout the clinic soared. Rumors existed that the excessive stress at El Rio had caused the break up of some marriages and dysfunction in other families. The potential kept growing for higher than usual stress to adversely affected everyone in the clinic.

Union Newsletter

This edition of the union newsletter dealt with contract negotiations, management's "Employee Communications Committee" and Dr. Wolfe's grievance.

"Contract Negotiations

The administration has drawn negotiations to a complete halt! There have been no negotiating sessions for the last 4 weeks due to the cancellations, and later refusal to set new dates for negotiating sessions, by administration. Our deadline for completion of negotiations was Sept. 1, which is obviously impossible unless we negotiate daily for the next two weeks. We have no indication that management will return to the negotiation table at all before Sept. 1. The members of the negotiating committee, union representatives, and legal counsel feel that management is refusing to negotiate in good faith and as a result have filed unfair labor practice charges against the Center with the National Labor Relations Board. The charges have been investigated and a decision should be released very soon."

The union claimed that negotiations had stalled, El Rio failed to negotiate in good faith, and that the union planned to set up an informational picket line.

According to press accounts, Showalter specified:

'Of 21 bargaining sessions scheduled between union and management since last spring, center officials have cancelled 13'."

Union Notice to Membership Regarding Management's "Communication Committee"

Much dissatisfaction has been expressed concerning the establishment of the Communications Committee with mandatory participation by appointed, involuntary members. If you are participating on this committee, you should be aware of the National Labor Relations Board Guidelines to the law which protects our rights as union members. Please read and use this:

Section 8(a) (5) of the N.L.R.A. concerning refusal by management to bargain in good faith say that: 'the duty of an employer to bargain includes the duty to refrain from unilateral action, that is, taking action on its own with respect to matters which it is required to bargain, and from making changes in terms and conditions of employment without consulting the employees [union] representatives.'

This means that management cannot discuss or make you discuss matters concerning wages, hours or working conditions within the [Employee] Communications Committee. They are required by law to negotiate these issues with the Union's contract negotiating committee. Any violation will constitute grounds for complaints or violations to the National Board and for appropriate legal proceedings."

Open Letter to the Union Membership Regarding Dr. Wolfe

"Dr. Wolfe's Grievance

An open letter from the union membership was distributed last week concerning Dr. Wolfe's dismissal. Management is to hear her grievance, but has once again cancelled the hearing, which has been rescheduled for Aug. 15 at Old Pasqua [Yaqui tribal center] for the 'convenience' of the witnesses! In another example of management contemptuous behavior, representatives from the National Health Service Corps have been barred from the hearing."

Meeting of the Negotiation Committee and the Shop Stewards held at the AFSCME Office

At this meeting, after reviewing the lack of progress at the negotiation table, the membership decided to take three specific actions: First, review the contract that we presented for any changes that might be needed, second, contact the federal mediator, Sam Franklin, and third, discuss the pros and cons of having an informational picket line.

About Mid August 1980

Revised and Consolidated affidavit NLRB Cases 6055 and 6061

To undermine the union, Mejia offered employees a 7% wage increase without consulting the union. The NLRB also saw this as an attempt to undermine the union.

Many employees thought that Mejia favored certain employees. Elenez believed that the Appointment Department, which had no union members, stood as ". . . his (Mejia) baby." Conversely, Mejia shunned Suite 2, which had a strong union presence.

About August 15, 1980

Wolfe had a hearing before the Grievance Committee of the board in a board room in the old Pasqua Yaqui Center. Wolfe's attorney had requested the presence of several people, most of whom showed up. The witnesses who came to testify on Wolfe's behalf waited crammed in a small outer room but most did not have an opportunity to talk on her behalf. Some that did testify witnessed parts of the hearing and thought it a travesty as decisions on Wolfe's employment status had already been decided. At this hearing, Wolfe heard a new reason for her termination. "Breach of confidentiality" became the new cause for Wolfe's termination. Earlier, Wolfe had shown medical records of children inappropriately disenrolled to Mejia and this action constituted the breach. Abrams made a passionate plea on Wolfe's behalf to no avail.

August 18, 1980

Meeting of Department Heads

Management claimed that negotiations were broken off because of the unfair labor charges filed by Larsen.

In a notice to union members, management offered ". . . five dates for negotiations if we dropped charges."

Those dates set for future negotiations were: Sat. August 23 (8 hours), Sun. August 24 (6 hours), Wed. August 27 (6 hours), Sat. August 30 (8 hours) and Sun. August 31 (6 hours).

August 19, 1980

Union Meeting

Dr. Warren reported on the current status of Dr. Wolfe and Leigh Roth's terminations. Tovar discussed the implication of Mejia's "Employee Communication Committee."

The membership held extensive discussion about the negotiations. They discussed both what issues had been completed and management's delaying tactics.

Mejia had notified the AFSCME staff that management would be unable to negotiate Labor Day weekend.

Other issues discussed included a Stewards' Report, the board and the up coming elections, and Local 449's general membership meeting.

August 21, 1980

AFSCME Staff Received Letter from Mejia

The letter stated the union must drop charges first and hopefully he (Mejia) might see us on Saturday, August 23. AFSCME staff contacted the NLRB and arranged for negotiating sessions in exchange for dropping the charges.

At the conclusion of the negotiations, AFSCME informed Milo Price of the NLRB that the charges for unfair labor practices had been withdrawn. Copies of this notification also went out to El Rio's attorney and Larsen. The letter addressed to El Rio read, "This is to advise that the charges in the above matter has been withdrawn with my approval."

About August 22, 1980

Affidavit - NLRB Cases 6055 & 6061

Mejia informed the union in a letter that a schedule for further negotiations for an initial collective bargaining agreement could not be discussed until the respondent (El Rio) received official notification from the board (NLRB) that the charges of unfair labor practices had been withdrawn.

August 22, 1980

Letter from NLRB to Debra Hillary

The union had, at that time, insufficient evidence to establish the claim that management violated the NLRB's laws. This decision would be reversed about a month later, but in its first letter, the NLRB stated its position:

"The above-captioned case charging a violation under Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, has been carefully investigated and considered.

As a result of the investigation, it does not appear that further proceedings on the charge are warranted inasmuch as there is insufficient evidence to establish that the employer violated Sections 8(a) and (3) of the Act, as alleged. I am, therefore, refusing to issue a complaint in this matter."

August 22, 1980

Leigh Roth's Written Statement Outlining Events Leading to her Dismissal

"1. I was an employee of the El Rio Neighborhood Health Center from August 1979 to July 19, 1980 in the position of a Certified Nurse Midwife for the purpose of being an active participant in a program including out-patient obstetrical, gynecological, and family planning care.

2. I have been very active in the organization of the employees of the Center into their own independent organization and then into AFSCME, Local 449. I further state members of management, including the Executive Director Anibal Meija and the President of the Board of Directors, Sal Baldenegro, were well aware of my involvement.

a) Prior to the decision of the employees to affiliate with AFSCME we had formed our own organization to protect our jobs and impress upon management our concerns as they related to democracy within the Community Health Center and our rights as employees to be voting members of the Center. In this capacity I attended a number of

meetings of the Employees Organization (O.E.) and helped in the organizing of both employees and patients to attend the various

Membership Meetings and Board Meetings for the purpose of

challenging the Board's right to strip employees of their right to vote

and other actions for the Board had taken to disenfranchise the

members of the Center at large. Through this period of time I

attended two Membership Meetings and one Board meeting.

Prior to the February 8, 1980 Membership Meeting Mr. Baldenegro and others had sent out a letter to the community stating that the doctors' and other professionals were racists trying to take over the Center. This letter was discussed at the next E.O. meeting at which I distributed copies of a letter I wanted to send in response. Although I did not send the letter at the request of the E.O. I would not be surprised if a copy fell into management's hands.

The Feb. 8th meeting, set for the purpose of electing new Board

members and for the Annual Membership Meeting, was attended by

my husband and I. Prior to this meeting I handed out leaflets, called

employees and patients and participated in other activities of the E.O.

designed to encourage participation. In addition I was asked by the

E.O. to be one of two people familiar enough with Robert's Rules of

Order to be of help at the meeting. At this meeting both my husband

and I spoke on behalf of the employees and otherwise actively

participated in full view of Mr. Mejia and Baldenegro.

Towards the end of the meeting several of Mr. Baldenegro's

associates were speaking out of order. My husband stood up and said

so whereupon Mrs. Baldenegro turned and said, 'Shut up you white

son-of-a-bitch'. To which Mr. Baldenegro's sister added, 'I'll have your

balls cut off you white mother-fucker'. [It was actually Baldenegro's wife who made that comment.]

b) In February, partially due to my suggestion at an earlier meeting, the

E.O. decided to affiliate with a union - AFSCME, and I began to solicit interest card, pass leaflets, attend and speak at meetings of employees to encourage union membership. During this period of time my activities were highly visible for I wore the union buttons at work.

3. Since the AFSCME election I have continued to be active. I was nominated and elected steward and nominated for the negotiating committee. My nomination and election was well publicized through-out the Center appearing on leaflets and minutes of meetings that appeared on bulletin boards and in employee boxes. I also attended the stewards training and hand collected dues from the membership. I routinely work my stewards' bulletin in full view of Mr. Meija and Dr. Vivian, the Medical Director.

My involvement also included participating as a substitute on the negotiations committee at ending the meetings with Mr. Mejia on 6-27-80 and 7-12-80. Although these meeting took place after Dr. Vivian had fired me, they were before Mr. Meija heard my grievance. In fact, at the negotiations meeting of the 17^th Mr. Mejia objected to be a substitute and insisted that I sit as an observer.

4. On July 24th I received the termination letter from Dr. Vivian stating that the midwife program was no longer needed. This despite the fact that my individual contract states clearly that I must be given 3 months notice if my contract is not to be renewed, and despite the fact that I was primarily hired to perform the role of a OB/GYN nurse practitioner with the hope that I might be able to perform un-supervised deliveries at some

unspecified later date.

On 7-2-80 I filed a grievance stating that I was not hired to do unsupervised deliveries and that my duties could not be done by others effectively. Further I stated that the quality of care would suffer and that due to current staffing certain programs would have to end. On the same day Dr.Bauman, my immediate supervisor, responded to the grievance stating that I 'should be retained by the clinic'.

On July 8-10 Dr. Vivian made a half hearted, ill conceived attempted to gain delivery privileges at AMC [Arizona Medical Center] to no avail.

During this same period of time the union and others intervened on my behalf in attempts to have Dr. Vivan reinstate me.

On July 11 the medical staff voted in favor of reinstatement and Mr. Showalter and I met with Mr. Meija as the third step in the grievance process. In this meeting Mr. Meija stated I was being terminated because I could not deliver without the attendance of a physician and that it made no sense for the Center to continue my services unless I could. I pointed out that I was not hired to do unsupervised deliveries and that my duties dealt only with providing OB and family planning care as well as administering the prenatal education department. Any deliveries I did were on my time and that I only received

mileage from the Center. Mr. Meija said he would look into it and on July 19 I received his reply."

Union officials and officers believed that Roth had been fired for her union activities. The administration claimed they fired her because she required a physician's presence at the delivery of babies. Roth later sued with the union's help and won her case but she could not return to work at El Rio.

August 22, 1980

Management's "Employee" Newsletter - Volume 1, Number 2

An article described El Rio's central appointment system's transitional problems, which had been the bane of many employees.

El Rio's Planning Director worked on a grant proposal for the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Planning Grant. Once completed the grant would be submitted to the HMO Regional Office in San Francisco for consideration in 1982.

Effective August 20, the OB/GYN program which formerly contracted with Tucson Clinic began a year contract with the Arizona Medical Center.

Also discussed in this edition: (1) the activity of the "Space Committee" working to determine space needs at the clinic, (2) a dress code, (3) baseball, (4) a new name for the newsletter "El Rio Update," (5) new employees and employees leaving El Rio, (6) employees on vacation and (7) names of volunteers.

August 23, 1980

Affidavit - NLRB Cases 6055 & 6061

Garcia, the Personnel Manager, informed the union that El Rio planned to limit negotiations to five hours per week.

Notes taken by Union Negotiators

Negotiations were held at El Rio at 8:00 a.m. Management announced cancellation of meetings scheduled for Sunday, August 24 and Wednesday, August 27. The first five hours of negotiations this day were spent on ground rules and management's attempts to substantially revise earlier agreements.

The union notified management that charges with the NLRB would be refilled, a federal mediator would be called in and an informational picket line would be established. The last few hours of the session involved some fruitful negotiations.

August 25, 1980

Larsen wrote to Charles Hofsteder, MD, regional head of the NHSC program based in San Francisco, for advice on how to further due process for Dr. Wolfe.

"Dear Dr. Hofsteder:

Recently the services of an NHSC physician, Dr. Ava Wolfe, were terminated. The current attitudes of management toward El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center's professional medical staff and the ambiguity in Dr. Wolfe's employment status made it impossible for her to receive due process. Because of Dr. Wolfe's termination and the subsequent inability to obtain a just hearing, some of the remaining NHSC employees have expressed a serious concern about job security at El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center.

Our bargaining unit includes providers. We are familiar with the specialized concerns affecting the providers and our membership has taken a position in support of the NHSC employees.

It is our understanding that they [NHSC providers] are not eligible to be members of our bargaining unit. However, we would like to address their concerns and to provide support. We are writing to find out what options are available so that we may extend our support. Are there any guidelines governing the relationship of NHSC's employees to unions?

NHSC employees have informed us that there will be a site assessment in September and I feel that this would be a good opportunity for Regional Corps officials and Union officials to exchange information.

Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Larsen received no response to her letter. But Wolfe remembered the NHSC as being very helpful. They suggested an attorney for her defense and offered her some legal ideas that might be pursued.

One physician completed his time under the NHSC, and decided to continued working at El Rio. At that point, being eligible, he joined the union.

Letter on AFSCME Stationary from Larsen and Showalter to Mejia

Management is informed of AFSCME, Local 449's, intention to begin picketing in front of El Rio on September 8 at 4:00 p.m.:

"The picket will be informational in nature designed to inform the members of the Center, the public at large and the employees of your continued efforts to prevent the speedy completion of contract negotiations with this Union . . . "

"Due to the informational nature of our action, we will not be asking individuals to honor our picket line, i.e., no attempts will be made to interfere with ingress and egress."

August 26, 1980

Affidavit - NLRB Case 28-CA-6061 is filed by AFSCME

The union charged that El Rio attempted to undermine AFSCME's role as sole representative of the employees by setting up the "Employee Communication Committee" and by engaging in other unfair labor practices.

September 1980 - Informational Picket Line & NLRB Ruling

September 4, 1980

Notice to El Rio Union Membership

"THEY DID IT AGAIN . . .

AGAIN MANAGEMENT HAS CANCELLED NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOUR UNION. TONIGHT THEY WERE TO MEET WITH YOUR NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE AND CONTINUE WHAT THEY MUST DO LAWFULLY . . . BARGAIN. BUT, THEY THINK THEY CAN BREAK THE LAW AND GET AWAY WITH IT!"

El Rio Management's Letter to the Employees

This lengthy letter gave management's view of their problems with the union.

"In the past few days, NHC employees have been propagandized by Union officials as to the reasons for picketing. Basically, the Union's argument is that Management is not negotiating in good faith.

I have refrained from responding to the unfounded allegations because my comments would elicit a response from the Union which in turn would elicit a response from Management and this letter writing campaign would not cease. However, you have the right to know our interpretation of the events and I believe that once you have been presented with Management's interpretation of the events, you will be in a position to draw your own conclusion as to whether or not Management is negotiating in good faith.

Contrary to your Union's statement, neither Administration nor the Board of Directors have any intentions of busting the Union which you as employees have selected. In fact, El Rio is ready to accept and sign an agreement which deals with what a Union is all about - wages, hours and working conditions. You should know that in March, 1980 the Board of Directors instructed Administration not to engage in any Union busting activities and to negotiate a contract with respect to wages, hours and working conditions. Your Union refuses to deal with these items. Rather they choose to deal with items not in the realm of labor organizations - employee voting rights, management of the Center, management of the available services to our consumer population, and manipulating the composition of the Board of Directors. Your Union has been told that Administration will meet and negotiate on areas germane to hours, wages and working conditions. Management, however, has no desire to deal with those items that are irrelevant to a Union Contract. Once your Union decides to get off the political issues, they will have a contract. Your Union states it was unable to meet its September 1st deadline which it had provided, yet your Union refused to accept for discussion Management's proposal that dealt solely with hours, wages and working conditions.

It appears that it has been a long time since the Union was officially recognized and their attempt to obtain a contract, is it because the Union chose not to pursue negotiations with Administration early in the going. It was not until AFSCME resolved problems at other locations (around May, 1980) that it decided to concentrate on El Rio. El Rio employees were simply not a priority of AFSCME.

On March 24, 1980, the Union submitted an interim proposal to Management. There was no other contact from the Union until early May. On May 13, Management informed the Union that it did not see any rationale in negotiating an interim proposal and immediately thereafter another proposal. The Union was then invited to submit a subsequent proposal to be negotiated. About two weeks later the Union submitted another proposal for negotiations.

On May 28th, I for the first time met with the Bargaining Committee, on company time, to begin discussing the process of Union negotiation. At this time, both the Union and Administration agreed to meet on June 21. That meeting lasted 8 hours. Another eight hour session was held on July 27. Five hour sessions were held on July 9 and 12. A session scheduled for July 18 was postponed and was to be rescheduled later that month. A scheduled session from July 30, was postponed as two days earlier I had received an unfair labor charge alleging that we had fired employees because of their activities in forming a Union. Management was extremely surprised at the charge and wanted to evaluate the Union's participation in filing of that charge. Management, therefore, decided to postpone the July 30 session. I should add that the charge was filed on the last day in which it could be filed.

Two days later the Union filed a charge that we were not negotiating in good faith. That struck us as odd in that we had met six times for a total of 28 hours within a month after we had received your Union's proposal and made arrangements for negotiating.

As you know, the NLRB decided that the 1st charge was totally unfounded. The second charge was withdrawn by the Union in effort to get back to the negotiating table. Management met with your Union on August 23 for eight hours, agreed to meet with the Union on September 3 and to meet five hours per week. Your Union, however, does not want five hours but twenty hours and all on company time at the expense of patient care. Because Management refuses to allow for any activity which may interfere with patient care, on August 26, your Union delivered to us a notice of intent to picket the work site. They did not give us a notice out of their good heart, but because by law they are required to give us a ten day notice before picketing. After lengthy evaluation Management made its decision to postpone further negotiating sessions until the Union finished with its peacocking behavior and its unwarranted attack on this care institution.

Contrary to the position of your Union, Management has not cancelled "about one dozen sessions." We have not even had a dozen negotiating sessions. Truthfully put, there has not been time to schedule a dozen negotiating sessions given the ground rules agreed to by your Union. The Union talks about adequate grievance procedures. Obviously they refer to the Board of Directors sitting as the Grievance Committee. It's ironic that your Union would want to change grievance systems, when in fact the Board of Directors have consistently supported and insisted that employees receive a fair shake. The number and resolution of grievances filed by employees does not lead one to believe that we are the fascist regime we are portrayed to be. For a system with 200 employees, only two grievances have been filed this year. A review of records shows that there are only 2 or 3 grievances per year. And when you begin to look at the resolution to the grievances, the evidence is overwhelming in the Board's commitment to employee rights.

As recently as last week, the Board of Directors reversed a decision with respect to an employee in favor of the employees' appeal. As you know, last year there were only two grievances filed and on both occasions the Board of Directors upheld employee rights against administration - a record of 100% in favor of employee rights.

The Union has taken a pot shot at the Employees Communications Committee. It has met once since its inception, is scheduled to meet on September 12, and thereafter once a month.

Does the Union expect you to believe that a ninety minute meeting the Committee would replace the Union. If that is their rationale, they are definitely in a precarious position. If there is any question of the purpose of the Committee, ask a Committee member."

September 5, 1980

El Rio employees appealed directly to the NLRB federal mediator to move the negotiations forward. Management could ask for a "decertification vote," which might end the union if there was no Labor/Management Contract after one year. A decertification vote is one where the employees can vote to oust the union. This might be done if the employees felt the union to be impotent.

Arizona Daily Star

Showalter went to the press and announced the negotiations had stalled, that El Rio failed to negotiate in good faith, and that the union planned to establish an informational picket line. References were also made about the dismissal of Leigh Roth. According to press accounts, Showalter specified that out of 21 bargaining sessions scheduled between the union and management since last spring, El Rio officials had cancelled 13. The article further contained information about the picket line, and the cancelled meetings.

"Jon Showalter, director of Local 449, . . . said that on Monday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. employees will set up an informational picket line in front of the clinic . . . They will be protesting what he called attempts at union busting by clinic director Anibal Mejia. Employees will not try to keep patients out of the center, Showalter said."

"Most meetings were cancelled ostensibly because clinic officials had to leave town suddenly, had a conflicting meeting or 'had a dog sick' Showalter said sarcastically. But the real reason, he contended, is that Mejia and other clinic officials 'want to bust the union.'

Management's "Employee" Newsletter - Volume 1, Number 3

A "Primary Care Effectiveness Program" review conducted by the Regional Office of the Department of Human and Health Services began at El Rio.

The supervisor of the Laboratory Department went to Boston to participate in a seminar and Gay Evans, one of the family nurse practitioners, used her vacation days to attend a four-week seminar at the University of Virginia titled "The Political Dimension of Health Care Policy."

Announcement of a future meeting of the Nurses' Association appeared along with the mention of the informational picket line and the hire of a new lab technologist.

Mejia held a press conference on "Tragic problems confronting health care"

Excerpts of memo from Mejia to "All Department Heads and Supervisors" regarding Picketing

"...received written notification that picketing will begin September 8 and 4:00 p.m."

"...management has not violated employee rights nor have we failed to negotiate in good faith."

"Any interference or disruption of patient care for whatever reason is unacceptable and will not be tolerated."

"If employees from your department leave the work site:

*You are not to make any threatening or sarcastic remarks."

*You are not to harass any employee who leaves their work station."

*If an employee asks what actions management would take, explain to them that we do not believe any action can be taken against their decision to join the picketing; however, we do know that leaving the work site without authorization is subject to disciplinary action."

"...As a Supervisor you are a member of the Management Team and should refrain from either encouraging or discouraging picketing."

Saturday, September 6, 1980

Employees met at the AFSCME union hall to coordinate various operations in preparations for the informational picket line. Mary Lou Gonzales, Alicia Tovar and Barbara Warren wrote and photocopied leaflets. Jim Cooley, Gloria Gonzales, Panchita Leon and Aubry Simmons had responsibility for picket line security which involved monitoring to insure that no clinic exits were blocked, preventing confrontations and establishing contact with police. Amelia Daniels, Alice Gallardo and Carmen Velez held sign-in lists for patients, employees and any other supporters.

Some employees spent much of that Saturday afternoon making picket signs. Although many employees worked on this, one family in particular did an extraordinarily fine job. Josie Guerena, from the Accounting Department, brought much of her family and lots of food to help make the production of the picket signs a thoroughly enjoyable task.

Although much underlying tension existed, the spirits of the employees remained high and outwardly jovial.

Before September 8, 1980

Notice to Employees from Union

Because of the reasonable fear that employees had about losing their jobs, AFSCME put out this notice:

"IF I PICKET, WILL I LOSE MY JOB? NO

Both Section 1 and Section 13 of the National Labor Relations Act protects your right to use 'concerted collective activity' to influence the actions of your employer. If any employee is disciplined or fired as a result of their joining with their co-workers to picket, it is a violation of the ACT and they will be reinstated.

Don't let fear guide your decision to join your co-workers . . . You have the right to picket and show management that you want to be taken seriously . . . "

"See you on Monday"

The terminations of fellow workers remained fresh in employees' minds but job termination after being on the picket line looked too obvious even for El Rio's management. The management team probably understood that they had used up much of their credibility and that lay offs because of the picket line could probably inflame the community.

Also, after the union officially came in, only one employee in the bargaining unit, Leigh Roth, had lost her job inappropriately, and this the union hotly contested.

Additionally, while management could replace workers with entry level skills, they would have an extraordinarily difficult time if the health care professionals walked out. Given the tenor of the times, it was quite possible that the physicians would walk if any ancillary staff had been inappropriately laid off.

At any rate, the union discussed and planned for such a contingency. Their major concerns involved the well being of the patients. Plans were developing to consider alternative health care if emergency situations arose and the medical staff went out on a true strike. Some employees discussed the striking physicians in Canada and how they handled emergency health care situations. They even joked about how mortality rates went down when the Canadian physicians went out on a strike.

Even though they considered these issues, it was too early to make preparation for a full strike. Many, if not most, employees hoped that this informational picket line would be such a success that management would be convinced of the employees' firm commitment and determination to secure a reasonable and full contract.

September 8, 1980

The Informational Picket Line

The employees had their informational picket line. The purpose of the picket line was to push the negotiations forward and to inform people about management's attempt to bust the union. Some patients expressed their support by joining the picket line. The picket line began at 4:00 p.m. and lasted until 8:30 p.m. Many cars passed by and beeped their horns in support. While there was evidence of much community support, there was no obvious evidence of community displeasure at the picketing employees. Estimates indicated that more than a hundred people participated throughout the four and a half hours of the picket line.

Larsen had hoped that a strong showing on the line demonstrated the employees' solid determination in support of the union. She had great fears that a poor showing might jeopardize future options. Larsen, as the El Rio Chair, at first felt nervous and had many concerns about how the event turned out. But as the afternoon passed, and it became obvious to all that there was strong support from employees, families, friends and community, the line became fun. Still, the seriousness of the day remained with her.

Larsen's fears gave way to organizational concerns as the hours passed. While she recognized the adhesive process of being on the line together, she worried about containing the line within reasonable boundaries and about maintaining the line the full time advertised. Larsen enjoyed little or no peace but after, on reflection, all the joys that the line brought to others also came home to Larsen.

The employees responsed strongly to the call to join that picket line. Even employees who had not, up until then, been involved in any active role with the union, joined the picket line.

Virginia Bishop remembered the line as fun and with "a hundred people on the line singing." She thought that employees joined the picket line for several reasons: the loss of voting rights, employees fired unfairly and problems in general with working conditions and benefits.

Abalos remembered

"I was in the picket line and carried a sign even though I was not in the union yet."

But while on that line, Abalos decided to join the union.

"People from San Francisco were at the clinic the day of the picket line,"

Abalos recalled. The people from San Francisco probably came from the office which had jurisdiction over the National Health Service Corp. Although, in our letter of August 25, we had requested a meeting with representatives from the NHSC, none was held. Abalos remembered that the El Rio administrators tried to hide the picket line from the San Francisco people but they were unsuccessful. So the San Francisco people began to ask employees about what had happened.

Abalos had not given much thought to going to the board meetings at first, but as she began to gain insight into the problems, she began to attend some of the board meetings.

Although Abalos' family had been anti union, she felt she had no other choice but to join the union because it provided a supporting group and a security blanket which protected the employees from the whims of the administration. Abalos sat in on some of the early negotiations and this became ". . . an eye opener" because she saw how maliciously management could act. Later, she served as the union Secretary in 1983 and also helped in the development of the Certificate of Nursing Assistant for the family health workers.

For Dolores Elenez the picket line was fun. She joined the line and the employees on the line tied balloons to her crutches. She remembered that patients also joined the line. Elenez believed that the line made a difference on how administration acted. Afterwards, fewer layoffs and more use of due process occurred.

The Guerena family came out in full force. The weekend before, they had worked hard on making the picket signs. On the day of the picket, the whole family joined the line. Josie Guerena affirmed,

"We went to the union hall and we worked different shifts and then we picketed because they were stalling."

Alice Gallardo remembered the picket line as a happy and peaceful event.

Yolanda Coronado joined the picket line even though she feared losing her job. She worked in Suite 1, the same suite where Sanchez supervised. Coronado's understanding of unions was that they would strike for anything. But she also knew that this management had stalled and that they needed a contract but the employees were getting a lot of excuses. Coronado believed that many employees received inadequately compensation for their work. Her two major goals were higher wages and job security, so overcoming mixed emotions and substantial fear, she joined the line.

Gloria Gonzales also maintained a fear of strikes. Still she had always believed in the union because she had faith that it kept a balance between staff, the administration and the patients.

Some employees, scheduled to work until 8:00, could only join the line for a half an hour after work. While the union encouraged everyone not working or who did not have direct patient care obligations to hook up with the line, it recognized that some employees could not join. This meant the union also encourage some of the medical staff to remain at their job post. Mary Lou Gonzales FNP had helped put up the informational picket signs and did much work to ensure the success of the line, but although a strong supporter, she spent most of her time at her work station. Gonzales joined the line after completing her work.

Herlinda Valenzuela remembered that management did not agree with us so we picketed so that they had to listen to us.

Yolanda Tupiken, a young Mexican-American woman who worked in Medical Records, made a sign which read something like "Honk if you support El Rio Employee." She also shouted for support with a megaphone. Cars drove down Congress honking away each time eliciting additional shouts from the employees. Lots of cars honked their support that day. The union members began to see Yolanda as our "Cheer Leader."

A RN and Team Leader, not eligible to join the union, still joined the picket line.

Jessie Reece, also not eligible to join the union, watched from the clinic. She knew that El Rio employed lots of single mothers who did not want to lose their jobs. To find out additional information, Reece read the union newsletter. She possibly stood out of management's information loop. Still, a lot of employees thought that Reece had extensive knowledge about happened at El Rio.

A former employee, severely disabled, enthusiastically joined our line. She had worked in El Rio's pharmacy where her duties required her to count the pills that went into containers. It had been simple but tedious work and this employee enjoyed having the responsibility. The job, which had value and contributed to El Rio, took away some of the doldrums from her life and instead gave her a positive outlook. Her El Rio employment had been terminated shortly after the new Medical Director, Vivian, arrived. Many employees thought Vivian responsible for the termination. Whatever the cause of her termination, she was a devoted addition to our picket line.

Six physicians and three family nurse practitioners joined the picket line. In addition some ancillary departments could have been totally shut down if this had been a full strike. With the support that joined this "Information Picket Line" we amply demonstrated that the clinic could have been shut down in a full scale strike.

This was definitely not a joyous event for the administrators but for the union members and their supporters, it was a real high.

September 10, 1980

Arizona Daily Star

Mejia called the charges the union leveled against El Rio's management "totally ridiculous." He further asserted, according to the article:

"...negotiations so far have been effective, but have been hampered by the union's bringing 'political issues' into them, instead of limiting them to issues concerning wages, working conditions and employment . . . We are not far apart when it comes to wages, working conditions and employment."

Mejia further contended that he initially had been happy that the employees unionized but that was later spoiled. Reading from a prepared paper Mejia offered his statement:

"When AFSCME was certified at El Rio, I thought that my prayers had been answered, that a union would bring order and predictability to employee relations . . . Instead, we got more propaganda . . . [The Union was] . . . aligned with a handful of discontented employees and ex-employees . . . The only real thing separating us [in negotiations] is political fluff."

When Mejia claimed that the NLRB found the union's charges unfounded, the press went directly to the Regional Director of the NLRB. The Regional Director denied Mejia's claim. Instead, the agency's responsed:

"We have not even issued a ruling on the matter."

Answering Mejia's claim that management and the union were not far apart and that the only real thing separating them was "political fluff," Showalter remarked,

"We haven't even begun to negotiate the issues so how can he [Mejia] know if we're far apart or not?"

September 15, 1980

Union Meeting Notice

"At the meeting with the Federal Mediator, Sam Franklin, on September 15, 1980 it was agreed that there shall be six hours minimum negotiations on Tuesday or Wednesday of each week and six hours minimum of negotiations on Saturday of each week. The union has maintained the right to picket and maintain contact with the press."

September 22, 1980

Union Newsletter

..Review of Negotiations

The first page of this special edition laid out the union's attempt to negotiate from March 4, 1980 until May 13 when Mejia wrote:

"If it appears that it has been a long time since the Union was officially recognized and their attempt to obtain a contract, it is because the Union chose not to pursue negotiations with Administration early in the going. It was not until AFSCME resolved problems at other locations (around May 1980) that it decided to concentrate on El Rio. El Rio employees were simply not a priority of AFSCME."

The second page laid out the early negotiations and some of the frustrations the union felt at that time. The second page also gave the results since the union called in the Federal Mediator.

"Union's full proposal given to mgmt [management] ca 5/19/80

First unfair labor charges drawn up on 7/18/80

BUT MEJIA SAYS . . .

' Two days later the union filed a charge that we were not negotiating in good faith. That struck us odd in that we had met six times for a total of 28 hours within a month after we had received your Union's proposal and made arrangements for negotiating.'

Ground Rules:

Early meetings were to establish ground rules that would

subsequently be repeatedly broken.

Ground Rule Meeting 5/28, 6/2, 6/27

Ground Rule Meetings cancelled 6/17, 6/19, 6/24.

Actual time Negotiating Before Unfair Labor Charge

7/9/80 5 hours negotiating

7/12/80 10 hours negotiating

Actual time of negotiations, excluding ground rules, from time Union presented first interim agreement on 3/24/80 til first affidavits claiming unfair labor practices on 7/18/80 was 15 hours. 15 hours in almost 4 months. (Contrary to Mejia's claim of 28 hrs. in two months)

POST FEDERAL MEDIATOR & PICKET LINE

Since we met with the Federal Mediator and had our Picket line it appears as though management will meet with us on a regular basis. We have met two times at six hours each and now we have four more sessions scheduled at six hours each:

Wed. 9/24 5:30 - 11:30

Sat. 9/27 12:30 - 6:30

Wed. 10/1 5:30 - 11:30

Sat. 10/4 12:30 - 6:30"

The third through fifth pages of this Review gave the names of the members of the management negotiating team and the union's negotiating team, and the content of what had already been negotiated.

September 24, 1980

Under the direction of the Federal Mediator, Sam Franklin, negotiations begin in earnest. El Rio management's team had seven members but only four came regularly: Connie Darovec RN, Jorge Garcia, Robert Snyder and Dr. Vivian.

September 29, 1980

Management's "Employee" Newsletter - Volume 1, Number 6 [sic]

It reported that Jim Lynch, El Rio's Project Planner, had become president of the Arizona Teenage Pregnancy Resource Coalition and that El Rio's Health Educator secured a federal grant to conduct an alcohol and smoking Risk Reduction Program under the Department of Health Promotion Services.

An article told about the Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committee chaired by Dr. Cramer which had reported on new drugs to be added to the formulary.

A new "Management Enhancement Committee" had been formed to make recommendations and develop strategies for advancement of managerial skills.

The Center had gotten a new Optometrist.

The Hospitality Committee intended selling menudo in the employees' lounge.

A laboratory aide was convalescing after major surgery.

Twenty listed employees would be celebrating their tenth anniversary at El Rio.

September 30, 1980

The Arizona Daily Star

The headline read, "Labor board sets complaint action on El Rio Center."

The NLRB only begun its investigation into the problems at El Rio earlier this month according to press accounts. The Regional Director asserted that the NLRB refrained from issuing a formal ruling until they could determine if the violations could be resolved first.

Still the NLRB stated that El Rio had violated the National Labor Relations Act by:

"--Refusing to negotiate 'in good faith' with the union . . . El Rio is 'not intent on reaching an agreement. They are merely going through the motions.

--Abolishing the position of nurse-midwife without consulting the union.

--Wrongfully firing the nurse midwife."

In total, the NLRB found about nine violations had occurred. One of the charges was added by the NLRB after El Rio retaliated against the employees for filing charges with the agency.

Showalter responded:

"...the El Rio bargaining committee has repeatedly stalled or failed to bargain. He said when management and the union have bargained, it has been mostly unproductive, with only five of 33 issues settled in five months . . . "

Showalter added:

"It's no longer the union versus El Rio, it's the national board [NLRB] versus El Rio."

When the press quizzed El Rio's attorney, he claimed the NLRB had not contacted him about the charges. The Regional Director from the NLRB disagreed.

The Tucson Citizen

Only two major daily newspapers published in Tucson and both covered the story. Their conclusions were essentially the same. Excerpts from the Citizen News read:

"The El Rio Neighborhood Health Center has been found in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and will be taken to trial before an administrative law judge if it doesn't remedy the situation within the next few days."

"...., regional NLRB director in Phoenix, said that some movement toward settling the complaints must be made by the health center soon to avoid going to court.

The Center has not been negotiating in good faith with its 110 employees since about 80 of them unionized last spring, Price said. He said that the NLRB investigation indicated that management apparently had no intention of reaching agreement with the union and was just going through the motion."

October 1980 - Earnest Negotiations & Anniversary Party

Beginning of October 1980

After the picket line and the NLRB charges, a radical change in negotiations took place. The negotiations that had dragged on for months with little to show, metamorphosed into a streamlined and efficient process.

October was a month of serious and never dull negotiations.

Showalter proved to be an experienced and highly effective negotiator. Garcia, the personnel manager and El Rio's Chief Negotiator, on the other hand, was new to negotiations. He had much to learn and had many shortcomings as a negotiator. Perhaps his biggest problem or at least most obvious one was that he seemed to think he needed to be tough to accomplish his goals.

When seated at the negotiations table, the labor team had learned not to give away their position on issues by facial gestures or emotional comments. The management team had not learned the same lesson and the union frequently became alerted to disagreements within management's team by the facial expressions of their members.

Each concluded section of the contract was called a "Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)" The MOUs were always recorded and after each session either labor or management had responsibility for transcribing those agreements. After one such session, it was labor's turn to do the clerical work. Larsen took the tape home, rewound it to the beginning as usual, and began to listen. To her delight she discovered that in error, management had recorded a strategy session on the same tape used for negotiations. While no major revelations were exposed, she felt pleased by the unexpected discovery. Larsen brought the news of the strategy session to the union team and the team decided not to mention what had been found. When the next negotiations came, it became obvious that the management team had concerns about the taped strategy session, but the labor team sat stoned faced with no hint of the coup.

Earlier, the union had proposed the establishment of a Labor/Management Committee to deal with occupational health and safety problems. Warren was the strongest advocate for this concept and before long contract language made provisions for this new committee. This opened the idea for other joint labor and management committees. The new concept turned out to be fairly effective. Warren served as the first Chair of the Occupational Health and Safety Committee.

Early in the negotiations, the labor team brought food for the breaks and sidebars. Perhaps the clearest indication of management's new seriousness to bargain in good faith came when, toward the end, they also brought in food to be shared with labor.

October 2, 1980

NLRB, Region 28, Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing

After providing the appropriate background and explainations, the document described "acts and conduct" deemed violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The following are excerpts of that document.

"Since on or about March 7, 1980, the Respondent, by its officers, supervisors, and agents named below, has engaged in the following acts and conduct:

(a) Since on or about March 7, 1980, the Respondent has without good cause cancelled and postponed numerous collective-bargaining meetings with the Union concerning the employees in the unit described above in paragraph 7, including negotiations for an initial collective-bargaining agreement covering said employees.

(b) On or about July 30, 1980, Jorge Garcia informed the Union by telephone that further collective bargaining negotiations for an initial collective-bargaining agreement covering the employees in the unit described above . . . were postponed indefinitely because unfair labor practice charges had been filed against the Respondent. . . .

(c) On or about August 8, 1980, Anibal Mejia informed the Union by letter that collective bargaining negotiations for an initial collective-bargaining agreement covering the employees unit. . . . were postponed due to the filing of unfair labor practice charges. . . .

(d) On or about August 14, 1980, Anibal Mejia informed the Union that a return to the bargaining table was conditioned upon the Union's withdrawal of unfair labor practice charges. . . .

(e) On or about August 20, 1980, Anibal Mejia informed the Union by letter that a schedule for further negotiations for an initial collective-bargaining agreement covering the employees in the unit . . . could not be discussed until the Respondent received official notification from the Board [NLRB] that the unfair labor practice charges filed against the Respondent had been withdrawn.

(f) On or about August 23, 1980, Jorge Garcia informed the Union that the Respondent was limiting negotiations for an initial collective-bargaining agreement covering the employees in the unit. . .to five hours per week.

(g) On or about September 2, 1980, Anibal Mejia informed the Union by letter that the Respondent was postponing further negotiations for an initial collective-bargaining agreement covering the employees in the unit. . .because of the Union's announced intention to engage in informational picketing. . . .

. . .By the acts and conducts described above. . .the Respondent has engaged in dilatory and surface bargaining and by such course of conduct has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union. . . .

The NLRB document went on to describe other violations of the Act as they related to the firing of Leigh Roth, the attempt to give the employees a 7% pay raise outside of any agreement with the union and the discussion of dress codes in management's Employee Communication Committee.

This document concluded:

"The acts and conduct of the Respondent [El Rio and its representatives in management] described above constitute unfair labor practices . . . "

Union Newsletter

"Unfair Labor Charges:

The Administration of El Rio was recently charged on nine counts of unfair labor practices by the National Labor Relations Board, as a result of our Union's filing of charges. Among others, violations were found in the area of failure to negotiate."

"Contract Negotiations:

As a result of our informational picket, unfair labor practice charges, and the presence of a federal mediator, we are now back at the bargaining table for twelve hours a week instead of the previous set minimum of five hours of week . . . "

Some parts of the contract that have been negotiated dealt with:

"Employee Rights

--Rights to join and remain in Union free from harassment.

Purpose and Intent

Steward

--Stewards will have 125 hours per year during working hours to investigate and process grievances.

Hours Worked

Overtime

Compensatory Time

Shift Differential

Provider Staffing

--Providers who are required to perform on-call back up and hospital rounds, shall be scheduled for no more than 8 sessions per week plus one session every 6^th Saturday.

Sick Leave

Probationary Period

Wages

Employer makes known:

--To new employees--the Union Contract.

Employer furnishes to Union on a quarterly basis

--Any change in the Job Classification of any Bargaining Unit employee

Union Staff Access."

"Other areas discussed but without yet reaching agreement are:

Management Rights

Grievance Procedures

Dues Deduction

Vacation Leave

"Patient Care:

A number of very important issues are coming up in the contract negotiations regarding 'patient care'. It is critical that we understand the issues at hand and stand united in support of our proposals. We will have a number of workshops to define for each of us what patient care issues mean to us personally and in our jobs."

"Professional Behavior:

...While we recognize El Rio's Board of Directors as the policy making body we should not relinquish our obligations to inform the Board of problems relating to Patient Care issues. Nor should we relinquish our rights to express thru the ballots, our concerns for these issues."

October 10, 1980.

El Rio attorney responded to NLRB charges in Affidavits - NLRB Cases 6055 & 6061 admitting some and denying others.

El Aguila (Spanish Language Newspaper)

Gaxiola, the young law student who had volunteered to help the union, attempted to establish a Tucson Spanish language newspaper named El Aguila. The first edition came out in September 1980. There were just a few editions, one of which carried the story of the El Rio conflict. Years later, when Gaxiola was an established attorney in Tucson, the paper persisted under a different management and a slightly different name, Aguila. Gaxiola continued to contribute a column to Aguila.

But in October of 1980, the newspaper looked back and reported on the history of the turmoil at El Rio. They point out that the Board of Directors, under Rosemary Diaz's presidency, had decided to make changes in the by-law that seemed to favor the Board of Directors and harmed the interests of the employees. One change would have permitted board members to be reelected year after year without a limit. Another change was to take away employees' voting rights for board members. El Aguila indicated that these changes had not been received well by the workers and that's how the battle started.

Early attempts at talking with the Board of Directors, it was reported, produced no resolution and this led to legal battles in which the judge ruled with the employees. Neither the judge's opinion nor the strong employees' protests produced harmony and that led to the organization of the union.

October 1980

Neighborhood Health NewsN (Vol. 6, No. 4)

This edition announced the addition of a new pediatrician, Dr. Marsha Mason. Mason became a loyal and effective union member, often participating in the negotiations.

October 31, 1980

Anniversary Party at Barbara Warren's Home on Halloween Night

This party celebrated the first anniversary since the meeting at Rick Voakes home, the first meeting where the employees gathered to organize some action in response to the offensive changes in the by-law by El Rio's Board of Directors.

Those invited included present and former NHCEO members as well as AFSCME members, sympathizers and supporters.

Ted Warmbrandt, a local folk singer, entertained with folk and union songs. Alicia Tovar gave a talk on the board elections and the employee backed candidates.

In a lighter and often sarcastic vein, Bill Bemis gave out "awards" to attendees. There were "honorable mentions" of employees who left El Rio either because of "burn out" or because of so called "funding cuts." Thirty-four former employees were mentioned. Survivors received awards and specially made buttons. In recognition of the contribution of the family health workers, special recognition was made. "Since there is such an abundance of family health workers and such a shortage of administrative staff, we are promoting "Bojo," Alice Gallardo and Mary Martinez to the management team to give the general (Vivian) a little basic training on how to lead the troops." Mary Lou Gonzales and Zora Zemsky, two family nurse practitioners, received the "Grand Survivor Award" for maintaining sanity and humor after ten years. The "Tight Rope Award" went to all those temporary employees and employees on probation. They received a special award to step two, their passport to a shot at the employee of the month award. To all the other employees present, blank "Certificates of Appreciation" were passed out and everyone could fill in their own names. AFSCME representative, Jon Showalter, received the employees' "Certificate of Appreciation" that read ". . . with gratitude for his free instructions in basic labor negotiations."

Awards from employees to management personnel were also distributed. CEO, Mejia, received the following medical advice, "Since last years treatment for chronic lie-itis did not prove to be effective and there is reason to fear a general epidemic in the administrative offices, we are advising consideration of a radical tongue-ectomy: To the Lab Director, who suffered many sexual harassment grievances, we awarded "A gift certificate to obtain a portable cold shower." For their unfailing help in the recruitment of union members, both Jorge Garcia and Lydia Sanchez were mentioned. Jorge, ". . . our personnel manager, Deputy Executive Director and chief liaison with the former fearless community leader of the indigent Sal Baldenegro," received special recognition. Lydia received recognition as that "fun loving team leader of Suite 1 . . . who is always there with a pat on the back and a word of encouragement."

A leaflet with "Statements of Appreciation from the Employees" was distributed. Some of the statements of appreciation were made:

"To Carmen Velez: We wish to present you with a certificate to purchase a pair of battery operated roller skates to maximize your ability to get around the clinic."

"To Ava Wolfe: We wish to present you with an iron clad medical licence that is impermeable to generals and sympathetic directors."

To Yolanda Coronado

& Geraldine Williams: We give you our recognition and deep appreciation for your courage in working in an extremely hazardous area. [Suite 1]

Hold in there . . . PLEASE."

"To Pat Patton: We wish to give you our Agent 99 Award in recognition of your superior abilities as a secret agent."

With sarcasm and also the underlying fear that the outrageous was possible, a new sick leave policy was posted.

"SICKNESS: No excuse. We will no longer accept your doctor's statement as proof, as we believe that if you are able to go to the doctor, you are able to come to work.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE (For an Operation): We are no longer allowing this practice. We wish to discourage any thought that you may have about needing an operation. We believe that as long as you are employed here, you will need all of whatever you have and should not consider having anything removed. We hired you as you are and to have anything removed would certainly make you less than we bargained for.

Too much time is being spent in the Rest Room. In the future we will follow the practice of going to the Rest Room in alphabetical order. For instance, those whose names begin with 'A' will go from 8 a.m. to 8.05, 'B' will go from 8:05 to 8:10 a.m., and so on. If you are unable to go at your time, it will be necessary to wait until the day when your turn comes again.

DEATH (Other Than Your Own): This is no excuse. There is nothing you can do for them, and we are sure that someone else in a lesser position can attend to the arrangements. However, if the funeral can be held in late afternoon, we will be glad to let you off one hour early, provided that your share of work is ahead enough to keep the job going in your absence.

DEATH (Your Own): This will be accepted as an excuse, but we would like a two-week notice, as we feel it is your duty to teach someone else your job."

Years later, employees still remembered the party fondly as one of the high points at a time of much pain and strife.

Barbara Warren, who had many parties at her home, remembered this one as

"the best Halloween Party ever . . . 300 people, awards, and celebration. The mood and comradery were at an all time high."

Herlinda Valenzuela and Alice Gallardo both went to the party and thought it "great fun." Josie Guerena, who came with her husband Eddie, remembered having a lot of fun that night.

Jessie Reece especially recalled some of the costumes like the guy who came with a formal jacket and no trousers. But what touched her was the survivor's list--those employees still at El Rio who had survived the conflict and high tension. A lot of reminiscing took place at the party.

Many employees who had been terminated or who left El Rio came to the party. Bill Bemis, Leigh Roth and Pat Patton all attended. Roth came in a gypsy costume. One woman employee came dressed as "the general," mocking the Medical Director. Pat Patton recalled the party as ". . . such fun and a great renewal. It was almost like Xmas."

For Ethel Larsen, who generally felt uneasy at parties, this one was clearly an exception. She cherished the memory of the outlandish costumes people wore. The costumes blurred any social barriers that might have remained. A well dressed and serious attorney arrived with his wife. He had on a fine jacket and tie. Only his trousers were missing. A clinic pediatrician arrived with his wife. He wore only diapers. After the tedious battles and emotional turmoil of the proceeding year, it felt wonderful to let loose and enjoy each other's company.

But the joy of the moment did not last as the fight for a union contract was not yet over and stormy times were beginning to close in on Larsen.

November 1980 - Employees Ratify Contract

November 5, 1980

The union held its first and only meeting at the El Pueblo Center. Negotiations, board elections and the annual meeting were discussed. A registered nurse, outside the bargaining unit, won one of the union's raffles.

Management's "Employee's" Newsletter - Volume 3, Number 5

The newsletter changed its name to EL RIO UPDATE. For some unknown reason, this month's edition was Volume 3 Number 5 while last month was Volume 1 Number 3.

The newsletter has a relatively lengthy article on the role of the Community Relations Department.

The Pima Health Coalition, an organization which advocated the passage of Medicaid in Arizona, was mentioned.

El Rio furnished hot dogs, buns, sodas and beer at its tenth anniversary celebration.

The daughter of one of the family health workers won the title of All Around Champion at the Junior Rodeo State championships in Phoenix.

The El Rio Hospitality Committee expected to hold a Bake Sale in the employee lounge.

The work of the Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committee was mentioned along with a list of the top ten medications dispensed during the month of September.

New hires and resignations were again mentioned.

Nothing was discussed of the substantive contract negotiations.

Within the Last Months of 1980

El Rio hired Edward "Ed" Bauman Jr., an accountant from Iowa. Bauman was a dour, insecure man, having some of the qualities of a Don Knotts without any of the good nature or humor. Bauman had persistently tried to secure his CPA credentialing, a goal he finally reached after numerous unsuccessful tries.

When management could no longer fire employees at will, they tried to get at Larsen through Bauman and a future accounting manager of dubious competence. Although Bauman and Larsen's job titles were both "accountant," Bauman's starting wages began at a significantly higher rate than Larsen's wages.

November 10, 1980

In the opening rounds of management's attempts to undermine union activist Larsen, one of the accounting clerks was encouraged to vie for Larsen's position. The accounting clerk, barely literate and without obvious talent or credentials, but with some spoken ability in border Spanish sometimes called "Spanglish," put in a request for an upgrade in pay to Junior Accountant which she did not know stood below Larsen's level at the time. Her claim was made after Larsen had been on vacation only four days. This accounting clerk claimed that during Larsen's vacation, she took over all of Larsen's job duties. In response to this request, the personnel manager, Garcia, equivocated but encouraged her to pursue this fantasy. In time, what had been a harmonious relationship would, with encouragement from management, descend to a torturous situation for Larsen and possibly also for the accounting clerk. More harassment was being planned.

Week of November 10, 1980

Union Newsletter

This newsletter proudly announced the completion of negotiations and that the employees now had a contract. Once negotiations became serious, it took only six weeks to complete a full first contract.

"WE HAVE A CONTRACT AT LAST!"

"Contract Ratification:

The proposal which has been agreed upon by the Union's and management's negotiating committees is now available to the Union Membership for your review and comments. On Thursday, November 13th, copies of the contract will be circulated and members of the negotiating committee will be available to discuss any areas of concern with you.

Meetings are scheduled for group discussion of the contract on Thursday, November 13 and Tuesday, November 18 in the El Rio Employee's Lounge at 5:15 p.m.

The ratification vote will be held on November 20 from 12:00 to 2:00 in the El Rio Auditorium A and at 5:00 to 6:00 in the El Rio Employees Lounge. In order to vote for ratification of the contract you must be a Union Member. Membership cards will be available at the voting place."

Upcoming Union Business:

New steward elections will be forthcoming very soon, since some of our former stewards have left the Health Center, and also the contract limits us to six stewards plus the chief steward.

Committee Membership elections will also be forthcoming. Two new committees are proposed in the contract:

Health & Safety . . . Deals with concerns for employee and patient

health and safety at El Rio

Labor/Management . . . Deals with regular discussion of issues of

concern between four Union elected representatives and

four Board representatives plus one administrative rep.

Management proudly boasted that they successfully got a "no strike clause" into the contract. That posed no problem with the employees as the last thing that they wanted to have was a full strike. The "no strike clause" existed only for the life of the contract and as far as most employees were concerned, they much preferred a reasonable contract to a strike. But needing something to boast about, the employees very willing gave that present to management.

November 13, 1980

Discussion on contract negotiations in the employee's lounge started at 5:15 p.m. A few members of the Negotiation Committee presented the contract and explained how certain consensus on contract language arose. Questions were raised and discussed.

November 18, 1980

Discussion on contract negotiations in the employee's lounge started again at 5:15 p.m.. This was basically a repeat of the Thursday evening meeting except other employees came who had been unable to attend the first meeting.

November 24, 1980

Larsen, reacting to the hire of Bauman at significantly higher wages, filed charges of discrimination with the Arizona Civil Rights Division of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and eventually lost. Larsen later filed a grievance claiming the union contract had been violated because she had been discriminated against because of her role in the union. The grievance would go all the way up to the board's Grievance Committee

November 28, 1980

Management's "Employees'" Newsletter now called "El Rio Update," Vol. 3. No.6

This edition reported on a Seminar, a Christmas Dance, the pharmaceutical formulary, and new hires. Among those articles were two paragraphs under the title "Union." The article stated that negotiations ". . . has been completed" There would be only one more edition in January 1981.

November 30, 1980

El Rio's accounting firm, in their 1979-1980 report issued in February of 1981, noted:

"Statement of Revenues and Expenses showed a sharp increase in revenue from HMO, the 'Neighborhood Health Care Plan' from $521,361 in year ending December 31, 1979 to $1,489,660 in eleven months ending November 30, 1980."

The increase was due to the new funds flowing into El Rio for HMO enrollments. In time the medical expenses for those enrollees began to show up on the financial reports and eventually overcame the revenue.

December 1980 - Board Rejects Contract

December 8, 1980

Union Newsletter

Membership in the union at El Rio had grown to an all time high of close to one hundred employees. There was a maximum potential at El Rio of about one hundred and ten employees eligible to join the union, so at El Rio close to 90% of employees in the bargaining unit enjoyed union membership.

Members of the union unanimously voted to ratify the negotiated Labor/Management Contract. Full copies of the contract had been made available to the employees in plenty of time for them to review it before the vote took place.

Although union members voted unanimously to accept the negotiated contract, the management team had difficulty getting it ratified by the board and more specifically by the Executive Committee of the board. The Executive Committee made copies of the contract available to the full board only at the night of the board meeting so board members did not have an opportunity to review the contents of the contract.

Normally because management teams are not a democracy, there are no questions of managements ratification of contracts. In contrast, because unions generally are supposed to function democratically, there often have been questions on whether or not the employees will vote to accept a contract. A unanimous vote by employees indicates good communication between the negotiation team and the rank and file membership as well as strong trust in the union leadership. Conversely, the board's rejection of the contract signaled poor communications between the board, the administrators and also the board's distrust in their own management team.

Still, the union leadership felt outraged by the board's action. More negotiation would be needed before the first Labor/Management Contract could be a reality.

The newsletter began by reporting that the employees had unanimously voted to ratify the contract. However, the board's Executive Committee recommended, and the full board concurred, that the contract not be signed without substantive changes. The newsletter expressed the anger that many employees felt.

"The sense of these changes would be to substantially weaken the rights of the employees and make many of the items in the contract dependent on the whims of a few individuals in management and on the Board. We as employees are outraged!"

In response to the board's actions, the union's Negotiating Committee held an open meeting with the membership to plan their response.

The establishment of a local chapter of the Coalition of Labor Union Women, commonly known as CLUW received some coverage. For several years, CLUW played an important role, through their own newsletter, in the Arizona labor community. The national office of CLUW held the responsiblity for the development of a bill that legislated maternal and paternal family leaves. Eventually, during the Clinton Administration, this bill finally pass Congress. But this was all for the future.

December 10, 1980

Notice of Union Meeting

The union held a meeting to review the contract and explore areas where it may be strengthened. For most employees, the year ended with the promise of future victories.