Protest Decisions

September 29, 1998

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL

Ervin Lemon

September 29, 1998

Page 1

Ervin Lemon

12131 179th Avenue, SE

Renton, WA 98059

Steve Kundinger

The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707, Mail Stop 10-11

Seattle, WA 98124

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI  48098

Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway

Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

Ervin Lemon

September 29, 1998

Page 1

Re: Election Officer Case No. PR-275-LU174-EOH

Gentlepersons:

Ervin Lemon, a member of Local Union 174, 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 his employer, the Boeing Company (“Boeing”).  The protester alleges that Hoffa Campaign bumper stickers attached to five employer-owned vehicles violate the Rules.  Boeing responds that the company maintains a strict policy which prohibits affixing campaign literature to company vehicles.  The Hoffa Unity Slate (“Hoffa Slate”) states that it has no knowledge or information concerning the allegation and has no reason to believe that either Boeing or the Hoffa Slate had anything to do with the placement of the bumper stickers.

The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.

Ervin Lemon

September 29, 1998

Page 1

On August 26, 1998, the protester alleges that he saw five tractor trailer trucks[1] owned by Boeing with Hoffa Slate bumper stickers on them near the vicinity of Boeing Plant #2 in South Seattle and on highways near Renton, Washington.  Boeing does not dispute the fact that such stickers might have been attached to company vehicles at one time.  However, after receiving a copy of the protest and inspecting the vehicles cited by the protester, the company found only  one Hoffa Slate bumper sticker affixed to one of the vehicles.  In accordance with established company policy, the sticker was removed upon inspection.  The Election Office was unable to determine the identity of the individuals who affixed the sticker(s) to the truck(s).

Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules provides that “All Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to . . . support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.” However, the Rules strictly prohibit IBT members from appropriating union or employer property in order to make personal campaign statements.  Specifically, nothing in Article VIII or any other article of the Rules authorizes members to affix campaign material to employer-owned vehicles.

Furthermore, affixing campaign material to employer-owned vehicles results in improper contributions by those employers to the Hoffa campaign, as well as supplying the false impression that the employers endorse one candidate, in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules.  That Section specifically states the following:

[N]o employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate.  These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by an employer and include contributions or use of employer stationery, equipment, facilities and personnel.

Employers are strictly liable for such a violation and can be directed to remove the campaign materials and post a notice.

In Meadows, PR-108-LU916-NYC (July 8, 1998), the Election Officer determined that

if an employer can show that it maintains and strictly enforces a policy prohibiting the placement of such materials on company vehicles (including the regular inspection of such vehicles for such materials and the removal of any material found) and if no employer agent was involved in the violation of the employer policy, the Election Officer will not find the employer liable for the violation.

Ervin Lemon

September 29, 1998

Page 1

In the instant case, Steven Kundinger, Director of Union Relations at Boeing, informed the Election Officer that the one sticker found to be affixed to a company vehicle was immediately removed.  He stated that Boeing has a written directive in place[2] that prohibits the display and/or distribution of all non-Boeing related or Boeing-authorized solicitations.  He also informed the Election Officer that prior to August 28, 1998, Boeing held meetings with their Licensed Transportation Organization employees at which management representatives explicitly reminded the employees of the company prohibition on campaign stickers.  Mr. Kundinger added that such meetings will be repeated “in an effort to pre-empt similar actions in the future.”  Mr. David Ray, Manager of Union Relations at Boeing, stated that supervisors are responsible for checking for stickers in the course of their duties.  If the supervisors finds a sticker, they have it removed immediately.

The Election Officer finds Boeing not liable for the violation of the Rules due to the following factors: 1) Boeing maintains a specific prohibition on the placement of campaign stickers on company vehicles at any time; 2) Boeing periodically reiterates the prohibition to its employees prior to governmental and union elections; 3) Boeing demands strict compliance with the general prohibition from all of its employees; 4) Boeing supervisors check for stickers on company vehicles in the course of their duties and expeditiously remove any campaign stickers found; and 5) no employer agent was found to be involved in the violation of the prohibition on the posting of campaign literature.

Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC  20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.

Sincerely,

Michael G. Cherkasky

Election Officer

cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master