Protest Decisions

            Hoffa-Hall 2011 filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that the Pope campaign obtained an impermissible employer contribution, in violation of the Rules.

            Election Supervisor representative Deborah Schaaf investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

The protest alleged that the Pope campaign’s Facebook page on August 25, 2011 displayed a photo of a UPS Freight truck driven by Dennis Stout on which Stout had affixed a Pope campaign sticker.  The protest claimed that this display of a campaign sticker on an employer truck constituted an employer contribution to the Pope campaign.  In addition, the protest asserted that the Pope campaign’s procurement of this contribution was intentional because candidate Sandy Pope indicated that she “liked” the entry that Stout had made on her page and because subsequently Pope encouraged Stout’s activity with an entry “Go Dennis!” on her page.

Investigation showed that the Pope sticker was affixed on the inside glass of the passenger side window of the UPS Freight truck Stout drove.  Stout’s posting on Pope’s Facebook page indicated that two drivers (one employed by YRC, the other by Transcore) had sounded their air horns in response to the sticker.  There was no evidence that the employer knew of or in any way condoned placement of the Pope sticker. 

The protest was acknowledged on August 26, 2011.  The sticker was removed that day, as were the posting by Stout on the Pope Facebook page and Sandy Pope’s response to it.

It has long been held that the “Rules’ prohibition on employer contributions extends to affixing bumper stickers to employer-owned or leased … vehicles.”  Wright, 2006 ESD 361 (October 2, 2006), and cases cited therein.  Accordingly, Stout’s use of the UPS Freight vehicle to display the Pope sticker violated the Rules. 

In Wright, the employer was unaware that campaign stickers had been placed on several of its vehicles.  When the protest there was filed, local union officials contacted the employer concerning the stickers, and the employer promptly removed them from its vehicles.  On that basis, we deemed the protest there resolved and ordered no further remedy.

Here, Pope responded to Stout’s violation by posting “Go Dennis!” on her Facebook page.  When the protest was filed, however, her campaign responded promptly by removing the posting from Facebook and by instructing Stout to remove the sticker from his employer’s truck, which Stout did.  The Pope campaign further states that it has advised Stout not to perform such a posting again.  Previous rulings involving the prompt removal of bumper stickers or posters displayed ad hoc on employer property have deemed the removal sufficient to resolve the protest.  See, e.g., Halstead, 2006 ESD 386 (October 26, 2006); Wright, 2006 ESD 361 (October 2, 2006); Leedham Slate, 2006 ESD 301 (July 5, 2006); Halstead, 2005 ESD 31 (June 6, 2005); Domeny, 2001 EAD 499 (October 5, 2001); Speak, 2001 EAD 239 (March 14, 2001). 

Accordingly, we deem this protest RESOLVED.

            Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision.  The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor in any such appeal.  Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:

Kenneth Conboy

Election Appeals Master

Latham & Watkins

885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

New York, NY  10022

Fax: (212) 751-4864

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L, Washington, D.C.  20006, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.