May 13, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Robert H. Newhouse
May 13, 1996
Page 1
Robert H. Newhouse
6486 S. Saulsbury Street
Littleton, CO 80123
Steve Vairma, President
Teamsters Local Union 435
2941 W. 19th Avenue
Denver, CO 80204
Teamsters for Justice Slate
Teamsters Local Union 435
2941 W. 19th Avenue
Denver, CO 80204
Robert H. Newhouse
May 13, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-744-LU435-RMT
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules") by Robert H. Newhouse, a member of Local Union 435 and candidate for delegate on the Teamsters for Justice slate.[1]
Mr. Newhouse alleges that Local Union 435 President Steve Vairma, a candidate for delegate on the Teamsters United slate, interfered with Mr. Newhouse's access to a SuperValu facility for campaigning.
This protest was investigated by Associate Regional Coordinator Zeik Saidman.
Robert H. Newhouse
May 13, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Newhouse is not an employee at SuperValu. He states that "[o]n 4/24/96 I attempted to gain access to the SuperValu . . . facility to campaign for delegate intending to talk to and leaflet available non-working members of Local 435." He alleges that he was denied access even after presenting credentials as a candidate. He also alleges that he spoke by telephone with SuperValu's Manager of Human Resources, Steve Thompson, who said that Mr. Newhouse should have Steve Vairma call him and that if Mr. Vairma verified Mr. Newhouse's position he would allow access. Mr. Newhouse states that he asked Mr. Vairma to do so, but that
Mr. Vairma refused, thereby using his local union office to block Mr. Newhouse's campaigning.
Mr. Vairma responds that he understood Mr. Newhouse's request to be for access to the break room in SuperValu's warehouse. He states that it was not his place to give Mr. Newhouse access to SuperValu property and that he would not have tried to do so for anyone.
Mr. Thompson also states that he understood Mr. Newhouse to be seeking access to the break room.
The Election Officer finds that there may have been misunderstanding with respect to
Mr. Newhouse's request for access. In the course of the investigation, Mr. Newhouse raised the issue of campaigning in SuperValu's employee parking lot, as well as in its warehouse. Under Article VIII, Section 1(e) of the Rules and the Election Officer's "Advisory on Limited Right of Access to Employer Premises," non-employees have a limited right of access to employee parking lots.[2] In response to an inquiry on parking-lot access by Associate Regional Coordinator Saidman, Mr. Thompson filed a letter, dated April 26, 1996, confirming compliance with the Rules on access. Mr. Saidman attempted to communicate this information to Mr. Newhouse's fellow slate member, George Kieffer, on Monday, April 29. Mr. Saidman reached Mr. Kieffer on April 30.[3]
Parking-lot access is the only right of campaign access to employer property that the Rules guarantee to non-employees. The right of employees under the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor-Management Relations and Disclosure Act to campaign in non-work areas on non-work time is referenced and protected by Article VIII, Section 11(d) of the Rules, as a "pre-existing right" of members. See Youngermann, P-742-LU688-MOI (May 2, 1996); Raymond,
P-434-LU572-CLA, et seq. (March 14, 1996). The Rules do not extend that right to non-employees.
Therefore, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Newhouse had no right-of-access to SuperValu's buildings. The Election Officer also finds that when Mr. Newhouse asked
Mr. Vairma to call Mr. Thompson on his behalf, Mr. Vairma reasonably understood
Mr. Newhouse's request to be related to building access. On that basis, Mr. Vairma's refusal was reasonable and did not violate the Rules.
Robert H. Newhouse
May 13, 1996
Page 1
To the extent that Mr. Newhouse's request for access encompassed SuperValu's employee parking lot, the Election Officer is satisfied that Mr. Newhouse's protest has been RESOLVED. To the extent that Mr. Newhouse's request encompassed SuperValu buildings, and that his protest was over Mr. Vairma's refusal to intercede for him, the Election Officer finds that
Mr. Newhouse had no such right under the Rules, and that his protest is therefore DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Zeik Saidman, Associate Regional Coordinator
[1]The Local Union 435 delegate election is being re-run pursuant to order of the Election Officer.
[2]This limited right is designed to balance legitimate property interests of employers with the crucial goals of the Consent Decree in fostering a free, open, and supervised election. See George, P-425-LU391-SEC (February 26, 1996).
[3]Mr. Kieffer had previously contacted Mr. Saidman about this protest, on Mr. Newhouse's behalf. The Election Officer is satisfied that Mr. Saidman's communication with Mr. Kieffer was effective for Mr. Newhouse.