 |
|
|
|
IN RE: STEFAN OSTRACH, Protestor. Stefan Ostrach, member of Local Union 206 and treasurer of Tom Leedham Strong Contracts, Good Pensions slate, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2005-2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). He alleged that a managers at Swartz Moving Company impermissibly interfered with the parking lot campaign rights of a member who support the Leedham campaign. He further alleged that such interference constituted an improper contribution to the Hoffa campaign. Election Supervisor representative Christine Mrak investigated this protest. Findings of Fact The protest alleged that, on December 6, 2005, Bill Zimmerman, a member of Local Union 206, appeared at Swartz Moving Company on NE Sunderland Avenue in Portland, Oregon to solicit accreditation signatures for the Leedham slate. Swartz Moving is under contract with Teamsters Local 162. The protest stated that, before Zimmerman entered the employee parking lot, two managers questioned him as to his purpose and asked that he leave. Zimmerman showed the managers the court order approving the Rules and assured them he would ask employees whether they were on the clock before seeking their signatures on petitions. The managers then left. According to the protest, several employees came out and spoke with Zimmerman. He asked whether they were on the clock; they said they were not. One of the two managers then returned and, according to the protest, asked the employees whether Zimmerman had asked if they were on the clock. The group said he had. The protest states that the manager then said, “We don’t want him around here; ask him to leave.” The group complied and Zimmerman obtained no signatures on the petitions. Swartz’ managers deny interfering with Zimmerman’s activity, but state that they commit to their customers to maintain a secure facility from which non-employees are excluded. After discussions with our investigator concerning the Rules provision governing campaign activity in employer parking lots, Swartz Moving Company has agreed not to impede or otherwise interfere with the rights defined by that rule. Analysis The Rules provide the following with respect to campaigning in employee parking lots:
Article VII, Section 11(e). Here, the employer now has agreed not to impede or otherwise interfere with exercise of the rights set forth above, provided that campaigners sign in upon arrival and not solicit employees who are on working time. The Rules contemplate both of these provisions as a balance between the campaign rights of members and the property rights of employers. On this basis, we deem this protest RESOLVED. To remedy the protest’s claim that the actions of Swartz’ managers on December 6 may have chilled employee involvement in permissible campaign activity, the employer has agreed to post the notice attached to this decision on all employer and union bulletin boards at its Sunderland Avenue location for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days. Under the circumstances presented here, we decline to order any additional remedy. In particular we decline to find that the conduct of Swartz’ managers constituted an impermissible contribution to the Hoffa campaign, as there is no evidence that Swartz acted in a discriminatory manner to permit unimpeded parking lot access to Hoffa supporters while denying it to the Leedham campaign. 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 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,
1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 1400, Washington, D.C. 20007-5135, all within the
time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for
hearing. Richard W. Mark
RICHARD W. MARK NOTICE TO ALL TEAMSTER MEMBERS EMPLOYED AT SWARTZ MOVING COMPANY The Rules for the 2005-2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) guarantee members the rights to support or oppose any candidate or slate of candidates and to aid or campaign for any candidate or slate of candidates. In particular, the Rules permit IBT members to campaign in company parking lots where employees park their cars, regardless of whether those campaigners are employees of Swartz Moving Company. It is a violation of the Rules to interfere with these rights and the rights of other members to receive, hear or view such campaign advocacy. In particular, it is a violation of the Rules to deny parking lot access to or otherwise interfere with members exercising these campaign rights. The Election Supervisor will not permit any violation of the Rules. _____________________________________ This is an official notice prepared and approved by Richard W. Mark, Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and must remain posted on this bulletin board for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days.
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED): Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq. Bradley T. Raymond, Esq. Barbara Harvey, Esq David Hoffa Ken Paff Judith Brown Chomsky Stefan Ostrach Steve Allen Roger Niedermeyer Christine Mrak Jeffrey J. Ellison
|
|
|
