IN RE: RAUL RODRIGUEZ, JR.,
Protest Decision 2000 EAD 45
Issued: November 3, 2000
OEA Case No. PR081701WE
Raul Rodriguez, a member of Local Union 630, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules")against Local 63 business agents Dave Naylor and Ed Rendon. The protester alleges that on August 15, 2000, these individuals interfered with the collection of accreditation petition signatures for the Tom Leedham slate in the employee parking lot at a United Parcel Service ("UPS") facility in Ontario, California, in violation of the Rules.
Election Administrator representative Paige Keys investigated the protest.
Findings of Facts
Rodriguez and Local 174 business agent Hobie Williams met on August 15, 2000 for the purpose of traveling to the UPS facility in Ontario, California in order to solicit election accreditation petition signatures for the Tom Leedham slate. They arrived at 3:30 p.m.
A fence surrounds the Ontario UPS building. There are at least two gates in the fence where employees scan their ID cards to gain access to the building. These gates allow entry only. There is also a main gate leading to the building that has a guard shack. Employees may enter there also, and all employees must exit there and pass a security check. The parking lot used by employees is outside the fenced area. The parking lot is not limited to employees and is open and un-fenced. Anyone can drive up and park there. The parking lot is about 100 yards away from the building, and a road crosses the area between the UPS building and the parking lot. When the petitioners arrived, Williams went to the main gate by the guard shack to solicit. Rodriguez took one of the entry-only gates.
Rodriguez began soliciting. He said he was doing "pretty good." After about an hour of collecting signatures, Williams called him over and said that they should plan a strategy. They decided to work together at the main entrance where many employees were exiting. They tried to engage workers coming out together in small groups of 3, 4 and 5, introduce themselves, explain the petitions and ask them to sign.
Shortly thereafter, sometime between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., according to Rodriguez, Naylor arrived. According to Rodriguez, Naylor started telling members in a loud voice not to sign the Leedham petitions. Rodriguez says that Naylor was wearing a Local 63 t-shirt. Rodriguez claims that Naylor said, "don't sign the petition. The candidate is a crook. Tom Leedham would not honor the strike between local union 104 and the warehouse." As Rodriguez moved about soliciting signatures, he claims that Naylor stayed with him and continued his conduct.
At some point, according to Rodriguez, Rendon arrived. Rodriguez states that he was moving toward Williams and that Rendon began conduct similar to Naylor. Thus, Rendon disrupted conversations with UPS workers saying he was the business agent for that facility and asking the members not to sign the petitions. According to Rodriguez, Rendon referred to an Oregon strike and Tom Leedham, and said that Randy Cammack was the one they should be supporting. Rodriguez claims he told Rendon to stop interfering, that it was the member's right to sign or not to sign, and that they were on their way into work and did not have much time. According to Rodriguez, the majority of the members were signing the petition.
Rodriguez states that Naylor and Rendon then walked over to Williams at the main gate. Rodriguez continued to gather signatures, moving closer to the gate where Williams, Naylor and Rendon were. Rodriguez and Williams continued to gather signatures, when Rodriguez claims that a third business agent arrived.[1] According to Rodriguez, all three walked into the facility between 5:30 p.m. and 5:45 p.m. Rodriguez claims that a guard said that they were there for a meeting. Later, other Leedham petitioners at the facility joined Rodriguez and Williams. Rodriguez claims that at about 9:10 p.m., Naylor and Rendon exited the facility.
Rodriguez claims that when Naylor and Rendon were inside the UPS building, they were telling members not to sign the Leedham petitions, and that members exiting the building after Naylor and Rendon went inside said they would not sign the petitions because they were following the instructions of their business agents. Rodriguez, however, failed to offer any employee witnesses who received such alleged "instructions."
Rodriguez also claims that Local 63 business agents have interfered with pro-Leedham campaign activity at this UPS facility in the past. He states that when people have shown up at the facility, Local 63 business agents show up shortly thereafter. (Local 63's hall is about 5 or 10 minutes away.)
Hobie Williams is a business agent with Local 174 in Seattle, Washington. He states that he was in the Los Angeles area because he took vacation time to go to the Democratic Party convention to "protest in the streets to ask for more attention to labor issues." He states that Rodriguez had called him said that they were going to be doing petitions at the UPS facility and asked if he could help.
Williams generally corroborates Rodriguez's claims about the conduct of Naylor and Rendon. He says that Naylor arrived between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., and began to tell employees being solicited by Williams and Rodriguez that Leedham was a scab and a crook and that he used to work with Carey. He says Naylor stated that "Cammack's our man," and that "I'll be back with some more people." Then, according to Williams, Naylor left and returned in about 15 minutes with Rendon, who started exchanging words with Rodriguez. Williams says he asked Rodriguez to move away, which he did, but not before exchanging insults.
Williams said that he explained to Naylor and Rendon that they needed 2.5% of the signatures, that those are the rules. Naylor and Rendon asked Williams' thoughts about Cammack. Williams said that he did not know, since he did not know him. Williams claims that Naylor and Rendon told members that if they signed the Leedham petitions, it meant that they were endorsing and supporting Leedham. Williams responded by telling members that the petition merely allowed Leedham to be in the back of the Teamster magazine and that they should sign the petitions. According to Williams, Rendon and Naylor said "I'm your BA, don't sign that. We got to support Cammack, he's our man."
Williams says that Rodriguez was more bothered by Naylor's and Rendon's conduct than he was. Williams said that he just debated with these two. Williams heard Rodriguez, Naylor and Rendon exchange profanity and asked Rodriguez to back off. Williams said that Rodriguez could have backed down, but did not, because he felt intimidated. Williams claims he told Naylor and Rendon that he would take more time off work and be back, which irritated them.
Williams states that later he walked over to Naylor and Rendon and apologized for threatening to return. He says that Rendon and Naylor also apologized and explained their long history battling with Rodriguez and his friends. They mentioned that there was "A lot of history, bad history, and deeply divided political issues." They also explained that although they did not know Williams, they assumed guilt by association.
Naylor states that between 5:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. a lot of members come in and out of the UPS Ontario building. He places his arrival at the Ontario facility at around 5:00 p.m., stating that he arrived early for a 5:30 p.m. meeting with management. He recalls that as he neared the building he saw members being asked to sign the petition. He saw two solicitors. Naylor concedes that he asked workers in the parking lots not to sign the Leedham petitions, stating "we support Hoffa and Cammack, and in my opinion I wouldn't sign it." He also admits stating that Leedham had crossed a picket line and had encouraged others to do so. Naylor says that when he was speaking to the members giving his opinion, Rodriguez and Williams told Naylor that he could not interfere with the petitions. Naylor denies getting into a heated exchange with either Rodriguez or Williams. He states that he entered the UPS facility around 5:30 p.m., and made no comments to anyone about campaign matters once he entered the building, and proceeded to attend to his union business.
Rendon's story is generally consistent with that of Naylor. He says that he arrived for a meeting at the UPS Ontario facility between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., in order to attend meetings in the building beginning at 5:30 p.m. He parked, walked up to the gate, saw Naylor and noticed the petition solicitation activity. Rendon went over to Williams and Rodriguez and asked what was going on. He states that Williams was professional and diplomatic, while Rodriguez took a defensive posture and raised his voice. Rendon says that he answered members' questions about the petitions and Leedham. He claims Rodriguez was aggressive towards him and it seemed as if he was trying to start an argument. He answered Rodriguez's questions and then left to enter the building at 5:30 p.m. He denies engaging in any campaign-related conduct once he entered the building, although he concedes that he may have answered an employee's question about what was going on in the parking lot.
Our investigator received copies of Local 63's time records for August 15, 2000 for Naylor and Rendon. The time sheets indicate that Naylor and Rendon were not performing union work between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., when Naylor and Rendon admit that they were in the UPS Ontario parking lot trying to convince members not to sign the Leedham petitions. The time sheets also show that both Rendon and Naylor worked a substantial number of hours on union business on August 15, both before and after the time period between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.
Analysis and Conclusion
The facts here do not establish a violation of the Rules. As we noted in Wasilewski, 2000 EAD 14, union representatives such as Naylor and Rendon have a right to openly support or oppose any candidate. Thus, even if we were to accept Williams' and especially Rodriguez's more severe description of the business agents' conduct, there would be no credited evidence here that Naylor or Rendon actually prevented Williams or Rodriguez from requesting workers to sign their petitions. As we held in Wasilewski, loud, rude and obnoxious behavior directed at petitioners, such as alleged here, does not violate the Rules even though it may have succeeded in convincing union members not to sign a candidate's accreditation petitions. The conduct of Naylor and Rendon in the UPS parking lot constitutes an exercise of free speech that cannot be censored. Nor does the evidence here support the claim of the protestor that Naylor and Rendon were on paid union time while they were appealing to IBT members to refrain from supporting candidate Leedham in the Ontario UPS facility parking lot on August 15.
Based upon the foregoing, the protest is DENIED.
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 Administrator 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
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
Suite 1000
885 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Fax: 212-751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 727 15th Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, all within the time period prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Election Administrator
cc: Kenneth Conboy
Chris Mrak
Paige Keys
2000 EAD 45
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA UPS NEXT DAY AIR:
Patrick Szymanski
IBT General Counsel
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
J. Douglas Korney
Korney & Heldt
30700 Telegraph Rd.
Suite 1551
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Tom Leedham
18763 South Highway 211
Molalla OR 97038
Barbara Harvey
Penobscot Building
Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
Suite 800
1140 Connecticut Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Raul Rodriguez, Jr.
13882 Stage Coach Circle
Victorville, CA 92392
IBT Local 63
845 Oak Park Road
Covina, CA 91724
IBT Local 630
750 South Stanford Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Kenneth Young
Wohlner, Kaplon, Phillips, Young &
Barsh
15760 Ventura Blvd.
Suite 1510
Encino, CA 91436
____________________
[1] Rodriguez does not allege that the third person participated in the alleged harassment.