 |
|
|
|
IN RE: NEIL POTTS, Protestor. (See also Election Appeals Master decision 06 EAM 14) Neil Potts, a member of Local Union 639, 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 Business Agent Billy Lindell campaigned for the Members First slate while time paid for by the local union. Election Supervisor representative J. Griffin Morgan investigated this protest. Findings of Fact Shawn Pulman was a Local Union 639 member who worked for UPS for 13 years. He is now an employee of Costco and not a union member. He was initially represented by Art D’Amico, who was a local union business agent before he was voted out of office as a member of a losing slate in an officer and business agent election. While his business agent, D’Amico encouraged Pulman to accept a suspension rather than take his grievance to a full panel where he might lose his job. After the local union officer and business agent election, D’Amico was replaced by Billy Lindell. Pulman suffered some additional disciplinary action and in April 2005, while represented by Lindell, resigned his UPS job. On February 13, 2006, between 2:30 and 2:55 p.m., Pulman received a call at work from Lindell; the phone number that registered on Pulman’s cell phone caller I.D. was a local union number, which Pulman recognized as such. Pulman recounted the conversation as follows: Lindell said Pulman got a bad deal when D’Amico represented him; he asked Pulman to write a statement that D’Amico had dropped the ball and represented him poorly; and he said it was important to keep the current business agents in the union and that “there is an election coming up.” Pulman responded by asking Lindell to write the statement and send it to him. Later that day, Pulman received a voice message from Lindell asking Pulman if he remembered that when D’Amico handled his grievance, D’Amico had his family in the parking lot and was in a hurry to go on vacation. Pulman did not return the message. Lindell admits that he was working on February 13 and that he called Pulman
for a campaign and not a work-related purpose. He first denied that he called
Pulman on the local union’s phone but then admitted doing so. He says that
shortly after he placed the call, he realized that he could not make the call on
a union phone. Lindell states that when he realized his mistake, he hung up. He
then went on his lunch hours, left the union hall and called Pulman on a
personal cell phone. Analysis Article VII, Section 12(b) of the Rules states that “officers and employees (and other members) of the Union may not campaign on time that is paid for by the Union. Campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, violative of this section. Further, campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is not violative of this section. The “incidental” exception does not protect campaigning outside of normal interaction in the course of a union official’s duties. Hoffa, P865 (August 26, 1996), aff’d, 96 EAM 232 (September 6, 1996). The “incidental” exception does not apply where the campaign activity is not incidental to regular union business. Id. In addition, Article VII, Section 12(c) of the Rules prohibits use of union resources in campaigning. Thus:
Any use of union resources in campaigning is prohibited no matter how isolated or slight. Milligan, 2001 EAD 156 (February 12, 2001) (use of union office to gain access to employer premises); Richards, 2000 EAD 5 (August 1, 2000) (use of local’s computer, paper, etc.); Yeakel, P762 (June 5, 1996) (display of campaign hats in union office); Miller, P504 (April 23, 1996) (use of union hall as a location to pick up a campaign raffle prize); Olsen, P172 (November 1, 1995) (use of union telephone for three calls of short duration to assist in campaigning during work time a violation). Here, Lindell used a union phone to make a campaign-related phone call from
his union-provided office on time paid for by the union. Pulman was no longer a
member of the union, so there was no union business reason to call Pulman.
Lindell conceded each of these points. Accordingly, we GRANT this protest. Remedy When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process. We order Lindell to cease and desist from using union resources to campaign. We further order Lindell to sign the attached Notice and post it on all union bulletin boards under the jurisdiction of the local union for a period of thirty consecutive days; Lindell must complete the posting within two (2) business days of receipt of this decision. A decision of the Election Supervisor takes immediate effect unless stayed.
Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996). 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
NOTICE TO TEAMSTER MEMBERS FROM
|
|
|
