IN RE: JOSEPH WRIGHT, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2006 ESD 361
Issued: October 2, 2006
OES Case No. P-06-330-090606-NE
Joseph Wright, a member of Local Union 82, 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"). The protest alleged that Hoffa bumper stickers were improperly placed on employer and union owned vehicles, buildings and public utility equipment in Local Union 82's jurisdiction, in violation of Article VII of the Rules.
Election Supervisor representative Dave Reilly investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact
On September 1, 2006, the protestor observed Hoffa campaign bumper stickers affixed to the building of Casey and Hayes, a trucking company that employs members of Local Union 82. The protestor stated the employer directed a shop steward to promptly remove them. That same day, the protestor assisted the shop steward in removing a few stickers from the exterior facing of the building at Casey and Hayes in South Boston.
On or about the same date, the protestor observed Hoffa stickers affixed to utility poles and utility boxes in various areas with Local Union 82's jurisdiction.
On September 3, the protestor observed Hoffa stickers on trucks owned and operated by Walsh Movers, Inc. Walsh employs members of the local union. When the protest was filed, local union secretary-treasurer John Perry contacted Walsh and requested that the stickers be removed. Investigation showed that Walsh complied, and that no campaign stickers are now on Walsh trucks.
Also on or about September 3, the protestor observed Hoffa stickers on automobiles driven by Perry and Pat Geary, the principal officers of the local union. These automobiles are privately owned or leased by the individuals; the local union provides a flat monthly car allowance as reimbursement for business-related travel and maintenance.
Analysis
Article XI, Section 1(b) (2) of the Rules states:
No 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 influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution. These prohibitions are not limited to employers that have contracts with the Union; they extend to every employer, regardless of the nature of the business and include, but are not limited to, any political action organization that employs any staff; any nonprofit organization, such as a church or civic group that employs any staff; and any law firm or professional organization that employs any staff. These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by an employer and include contributions or use of employer stationery, equipment, facilities and personnel.
The Rules' prohibition on employer contributions extends to affixing bumper stickers to employer-owned or leased buildings or vehicles. Feeley, P874 (September 17, 1996); see also, Speak et al, 2001 EAD 331 (April 30, 2001). Our investigation established that Walsh Movers was unaware that campaign bumper stickers had been placed on employer vehicles. After the protest was filed, the officers of Local Union 82 promptly notified the employer of the protest and requested the employer direct employees to remove the campaign stickers. The employer immediately complied with the request and the offending materials were removed and have not been reaffixed.
Our investigation also established that the employer Casey and Hayes, alerted that campaign stickers had been placed on the facade of the terminal building by a shop steward, ordered their removal, which was accomplished promptly. Accordingly, we deem this aspect of the protest RESOLVED.
With respect to the posting of stickers on public utility signs and boxes, the Rules neither protect nor prohibit this activity. Black, 2001 EAD 338 (May 1, 2001); see also Meadows, P877 (August 27,1996), citing Braga, P795 (June 19, 1996. As such, individuals do not have a right under the Rules to affix campaign stickers to such objects. Equally, individuals who remove or deface campaign stickers posted on such objects do not violate the Rules. Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of the protest.
On the issue of display of campaign stickers on union-provided autos, Article VII, Section 12(c) permits "Union officers and employees provided with Union-owned or leased cars, if otherwise afforded the right to utilize those cars for personal activities, [to] use the cars for campaign activities, provided no costs, or expenses incurred as a consequence of such use are paid out of Union funds or other prohibited sources." A weight of decisional authority construes this provision to permit union officers and employees to display partisan material on such cars. Thus, Carr, 91 EAM 143 (May 2, 1991), holds that display of a campaign sign in a vehicle used for union business does not violate the Rules. Similarly, Blake, P712 (April 29, 1996), aff'd, 96 EAM 185 (May 10, 1996), permits display of a partisan bumper sticker on a car used for union business. Blake was followed in Van Der Woude, P1041 (October 28, 1996) and Jordan, PR276 (September 29, 1998). This authority was followed in Stroud, 2001 EAD 199 (February 27, 2001), aff'd, 01 EAM 42 (March 9, 2001).
Accordingly, union officers and employees who are permitted personal use of union-provided vehicles enjoy a personal right under Article VII, Section 12(c) of the Rules to display campaign bumper stickers on them. Here, the local union does not provide the vehicles; instead, it pays a flat monthly allowance to reimburse the officers for business use of their personal vehicles. These facts provide no basis for finding a Rules violation, and we therefore DENY this aspect of the protest.
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
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, New York 10022
Fax: (212) 751-4864
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. 20006-1416, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2006 ESD 361
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2198
braymond@teamster.org
David J. Hoffa
Hoffa 2006
30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 324
Farmington Hills, MI 48834
David@hoffapllc.com
Barbara Harvey
645 Griswold Street
Suite 3060
Detroit, MI 48226
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210
ken@tdu.org
Daniel E. Clifton
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10001
dclifton@lcnlaw.com
Stefan Ostrach
1863 Pioneer Parkway East, #217
Springfield, OR 97477-3907
saostrach@gmail.com
Joseph Wright
330 Dorchester Street
South Boston, MA 02127
josephawright@comcast.net
John Perry
330 Dorchester Street
South Boston, MA 02127
David F. Reilly
22 West Main Street
North Kingston, RI 02852
dreilly@rootltd.com
Maureen Geraghty
Geraghty Law Firm
426 Old Salem Road
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
mg@geraghtylawfirm.com
Jeffrey Ellison
510 Highland Avenue, #325
Milford, MI 48381
EllisonEsq@aol.com