November 30, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Kenneth Haarala
November 30, 1998
Page 1
Kenneth Haarala
P.O. Box 9065
San Bernardino, CA 92427
Robert Hasegawa
Teamsters Local 553
553 John Street
Seattle, WA 98109
Tom Leedham
c/o Tom Leedham Campaign Office
P.O. Box 15877
Washington, DC 20003
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
Kenneth Haarala
November 30, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-361-LU174-EOH
Gentlemen:
Kenneth Haarala, a member of Local Union 63, 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 Robert Hasegawa, secretary-treasurer of Local
Union 174 and a candidate for Western regional vice-president on the Tom Leedham “Rank and File Power” Slate (“Leedham Slate”). The protester alleges that Mr. Hasegawa utilized union resources to travel to Southern California to ostensibly attend the United Parcel Service (“UPS”)Western Region Grievance Hearings, but in reality to campaign for the Leedham Slate, in violation of the Rules. Mr. Hasegawa responded that his travel resulted from legitimate union business and that any campaigning that occurred while he was traveling was after the conclusion of the legitimate union business and therefore proper under the Rules.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.
On October 26, 1998, the pre-panel hearing of the UPS Western Region Grievance Hearings (“Western Region Hearings”) was held in Palm Springs, California. The Western Region Hearings are held on a quarterly basis. Prior to the actual hearings, a pre-panel hearing is held to review the disposition of all of the cases pending before the Western Region Hearings panel.
Kenneth Haarala
November 30, 1998
Page 1
Mr. Haarala contends that Mr. Hasegawa traveled to Palm Springs for no other reason but to campaign for the Leedham Slate, that Mr. Hasegawa did not participate in the pre-panel hearings held on Monday, October 26, that he failed to attend the actual grievance hearings themselves over the next few days, and that he utilized union resources to finance the remainder of his stay in the Palm Springs area which he dedicated completely to campaigning.
Mr. Hasegawa and Pat Fry, a new Local Union 174 business agent, arrived in Palm Springs on Sunday, October 25. Mr. Hasegawa stated that he always flies down the night prior to pre-panel hearings in order to leave time to review and prepare cases as well as to meet with employer representatives, if necessary.[1] On Monday, October 26, prior to the start of the pre-panel hearing, Mr. Hasegawa and Mr. Fry campaigned from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. outside the premises of a facility which employed IBT members as truck drivers. Between 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., Mr. Hasegawa reviewed the status of a number of cases with Mr. Fry and spoke with other IBT members regarding the issues that were likely to be discussed during the Western Region Hearings. The pre-panel hearing was held from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
On Tuesday, October 26, Mr. Hasegawa left Palm Springs and proceeded to campaign in the general geographic area, flying back to Seattle on Friday, October 30. Mr. Fry remained at the Western Region Hearings from Monday, October 26 to Wednesday, October 28 and did not campaign with Mr. Hasegawa except for on Monday morning as mentioned above.
Mr. Hasegawa asserted that it had always been his intention to only attend the first day of the Western Region Hearings and presented documentation to the Election Office showing that he had requested vacation time for the period from October 26 to October 30. Local Union 174 paid for Mr. Hasegawa’s round-trip airfare and the his hotel expenses for Sunday, October 25.
Mr. Hasegawa personally paid for all of the other expenses incurred on the trip.
Mr. Hasegawa serves on the UPS National Grievance Committee, the UPS National Negotiating Committee, and the UPS Western Region (second level) Negotiating Committee and is Chair of the UPS Joint Council 28 Rider and Supplemental Negotiating Committee. He has attended Western Region Hearings numerous times in the past in his capacity as secretary-treasurer of Local Union 174 and due to his familiarity with UPS/IBT relations. According to Mr. Hasegawa, he attended the October 26 Western Region Hearings in Palm Springs because two grievances related to Local Union 174 were scheduled to be heard and he was supervising the actions of Mr. Fry.
Kenneth Haarala
November 30, 1998
Page 1
Mr. Hasegawa stated that the two cases related to Local Union 174 ended up not being heard due to the fact that they had been settled. When asked by the Election Office investigator if he knew of their disposition prior to traveling to Palm Springs, Mr. Hasegawa stated that he was unsure of when he learned that the cases had been settled but added that he would have traveled to the hearings regardless of their disposition, due to his interest in the ongoing relationship between UPS and the IBT. Mr. Hasegawa presented a copy of notes that he had taken during the October 26 pre-panel hearing.
Union officials have a “right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern.” Campanella,
PR-025-IBT-NCE (November 14, 1997) citing Martin, P-010-IBT-PNJ (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). Accordingly, candidates who are union officers have an obligation to perform the duties of their office during an election.
While candidates may not campaign during time that is paid for by the union or any other employer; “campaigning incidental to work or regular union business or during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is not violative of the campaign contribution rules.” Rules, Article XII, Section 1(b)(4). A candidate is not prohibited by the Rules from campaigning merely because he is traveling on union-paid business, as long as such campaigning does not take place during working hours or does not otherwise involve the use of union funds or resources. Abraham, PR-089-LU100-NCE (June 8, 1998); Sullivan, P-052-LU14-SCE (December 12, 1995), aff’d in rel part, 96 - Elec. App. - 55 (KC) (January 17, 1996).
Here, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Hasegawa clearly attended the pre-panel hearing for legitimate union business reasons and not for election campaigning. No evidence was presented that Mr. Hasegawa campaigned during working hours on October 26. The fact that Mr. Hasegawa engaged in incidental campaigning prior to the start of the pre-panel hearings and campaigned full time while on vacation from October 27 to October 30 does not constitute a violation of the Rules.
The Election Officer has consistently denied protests when the protester offers no evidence to corroborate and support his allegations. Hoffa, PR-081-IBT-NCE (May 13, 1998). The protester bears the burden of proof to present evidence that a violation has occurred. Rules, Article XIV, Section 1. In the instant case, the protester has presented no evidence of a violation and Mr. Hasegawa has presented substantial evidence that he was traveling for legitimate union business and that Local Union 174 incurred none of the costs of his campaigning.
Accordingly, this protest is DENIED.
Kenneth Haarala
November 30, 1998
Page 1
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
[1] The Election Office investigated the feasibility of Mr. Hasegawa flying down on Monday morning instead of Sunday night. According to the schedule provided by Alaskan Airlines, for Mr. Hasegawa to have made it to the 1:30 p.m. hearing in time, he would have had to take a 7:00 a.m. flight from Seattle. Consequently, the Election Officer finds that it was reasonable for Mr. Hasegawa to decide to fly down to Palm Springs on Sunday night in order to insure both a timely arrival and proper preparation.