November 15, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Harold Feigenblat
November 15, 1996
Page 1
Harold Feigenblat
5 Laurel Lane
Shelton, CT 06484
Gary Thibeault
43 Chestnut Street
Seymour, CT 06483
Jack Powers, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 1150
150 Garfield Avenue
Stratford, CT 06497
Harold Feigenblat
November 15, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1098-LU1150-ENG
Gentlemen:
Harold Feigenblat, a member of Local Union 1150 and a union steward at Sikorsky Aircraft (“Sikorsky”), filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Gary Thibeault, also a member of Local Union 1150. Mr. Feigenblat alleges that
Mr. Thibeault violated the Rules by distributing copies of a previous decision of the Election Officer, Thibeault, P-898-LU1150-ENG (October 4, 1996), in the men’s room of his department at Sikorsky and “all over the shop.” Mr. Feigenblat also objects to that portion of the previous decision that characterized him as a “Hoffa supporter,” which he vehemently denies in his current protest and for which he now demands a retraction from the Election Officer.[1]
Mr. Thibeault denies copying or distributing copies of the decision or directing anyone else to do so.
This protest was investigated by Associate Regional Coordinator David F. Reilly.
Harold Feigenblat
November 15, 1996
Page 1
In Thibeault, the Election Officer granted a protest filed by Mr. Thibeault alleging that Mr. Feigenblat had retaliated against him for supporting the reelection of General President
Ron Carey. The Election Officer based her decision on the fact that Mr. Feigenblat had reported the protester, a vocal and avid Carey supporter, to Sikorsky management for “campaigning” during work hours and on employer premises without any reliable information to support such a charge. The Election Officer concluded that under these circumstances Mr. Feigenblat was motivated to retaliate against Mr. Thibeault because of his support for Mr. Carey.
In the current protest, Mr. Feigenblat accuses Mr. Thibeault, or someone acting on his behalf, of distributing hundreds of copies of the Thibeault decision throughout the work place and, specifically, in the men’s room of his department at Sikorsky.
The investigation revealed that the decision at issue was posted at Local Union 1150’s hall, as well as on the local union bulletin board at the Sikorsky site. Beyond these two postings, however, the investigator could find no corroboration for Mr. Feigenblat’s claim that hundreds of copies were left in the men’s room or elsewhere at Sikorsky.
The investigator interviewed a number of individuals whose names were supplied to him by Mr. Thibeault.[2] One of them, Ted Garbian, the head of human resources at Sikorsky, stated that he was not aware of any copies of the decision stacked in the men’s room or elsewhere. Two other employees who work in Mr. Feigenblat’s department also denied having seen copies of the decision in the men’s room or elsewhere in the department. A female employee interviewed by the investigator denied seeing copies of the decision in the women’s room of
Mr. Feigenblat’s department.
Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules states:
Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.
The Election Officer has previously stated that conduct is not retaliatory unless it “embodies a palpable threat of actual harm.” Blake, P-785-LU630-CLA (June 19, 1996). See also Dunn, P-110-LU25-BOS (July 28, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 8 (KC) (August 21, 1995); Kelly, P-600-LU705-CHI et seq. (March 27, 1991); Schweitzer, P-672-LU896-CLA (March 25, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 118 (SA) (April 31, 1991); In Re: Sullivan, 95 - Elec. App. - 2 (KC) (July 14, 1995).
Harold Feigenblat
November 15, 1996
Page 1
In the present matter, the Election Officer finds no evidence that the decision was distributed beyond the posting at the local union hall and on the local union bulletin board at Sikorsky. Even if wider distribution did take place, however, such distribution would not have constituted harm or the threat of harm, under the Rules. The filing of a protest is protected activity. In Re: Sullivan, 95 - Elec. App. - 2 (KC) (July 14, 1995) (“[T]he right of IBT members to file, free from retaliation, election protests, even protests which are found to be non-meritorious, goes to the heart of the safeguards mandated by the Rules and the Consent Order”). The resolution of a protest, as embodied in a decision, is a protected and public document.
Furthermore, the decisions of the Election Officer address legitimate issues of concern to members. The Election Officer has often stated that the Rules do not prohibit local union officers and officials from communicating with members on legitimate issues of ongoing concern. See, e.g., Martin, P-010-IBT-PNJ et seq. (August 17, 1995) (decision on remand), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995); Carter, P-377-LU71-SEC (February 16, 1996) (notice to members regarding protest filed by member did not violate the Rules where it accurately reported on protest); Barros, P-648-LU70-CSF (April 17, 1996) (distribution of copies of previously filed protests alone does not constitute retaliation, under the Rules). Therefore, the distribution of the Election Officer’s decision alone does not constitute retaliatory conduct.
With respect to Mr. Feigenblat’s complaint that the previous decision unfairly characterized him as a Hoffa supporter, the appropriate avenue for addressing that issue was the appeals process provided for under the Rules.[3] Mr. Feigenblat, who was sent a copy of the decision on October 28, 1996, had the opportunity to challenge any of its findings before the Appeals Master.
Based on the foregoing, the protest is 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
Harold Feigenblat
November 15, 1996
Page 1
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
David F. Reilly, Associate Regional Coordinator
[1]In his protest, Mr. Feigenblat also complained of not having been sent a copy of the Thibeault decision by the Election Officer. That oversight was rectified on October 28, 1996 when a copy of the decision was sent by UPS overnight mail to Mr. Feigenblat’s home address.
[2]Mr. Feigenblat could not provide the names of any others who might have seen stacks of copies of the decision in the men’s room or elsewhere at Sikorsky.
[3]Article XIV, Section 2(i) of the Rules provides that “any person . . . who is aggrieved by the determination of the protest may, within one (1) day of receipt of the decision, request a hearing before the Elections Appeals Master.” All decisions of the Election Officer, including the one at issue here, contain a final paragraph advising all interested parties of this right and explaining the procedure for exercising it.