IN RE: TEAMSTERS FOR A DEMOCRATIC UNION, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2006 ESD 384
Issued: October 26, 2006
OES Case No. P-06-355-101606-HQ
Teamsters for a Democratic Union, an independent committee, 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 James P. Hoffa, C. Thomas Keegel and Walter Lytle, candidates for IBT international office on the Hoffa 2006 slate, campaigned inside three separate employer premises during employee work time, in violation of Article VII, Section 12 (d) and (f) of the Rules.
Election Supervisor representative Maureen Geraghty investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact
On October 12, 2006, James P. Hoffa campaigned for 30 minutes inside the employee break room at The Dial Company in St. Louis, Missouri. Hoffa is seeking re-election as IBT General President. The Dial Company has allowed candidates for IBT International office to campaign in the employee break room in previous IBT elections. On October 12, Dial managers allowed employees to stop work briefly in order to go to the break room and hear Hoffa.
On October 13, Hoffa and various supporters campaigned inside the employee break room and dock areas at a USF Holland terminal in southern Indiana. The campaigning lasted for about 30 minutes. Our investigator obtained evidence that although USF Holland permitted campaigning in the employee break room in the 1996 and 2001 IBT election cycles; management officials had instructed Leedham supporters to limit campaign activity in the employee break room during the current IBT election cycle. There was no evidence Holland managers authorized employees to go to the break room to hear Hoffa or to cease work during the short period that Hoffa campaigned in the dock area.
Also on October 13, C. Thomas Keegel and Walter Lytle campaigned in the employee break room and dock areas at the Roadway terminal in Louisville, Kentucky for approximately 15 minutes. Keegel and Lytle are seeking re-election, respectively, as General Secretary-Treasurer and Central Region vice president on the Hoffa 2006 slate. Evidence showed that the employer permitted employees to stop work in order to go to the break room to meet and speak with Keegel and Lytle.
After this protest was filed on October 16, candidates for International office on the Tom Leedham Strong Contracts Good Pensions slate requested and were granted access to the employee break rooms and dock areas at the USF Holland and Roadway facilities that same day. Holland and Roadway management allowed the Leedham candidates and their supporters to campaign in the same employer areas where Hoffa, Keegel and Lytle had previously campaigned and for an equal amount of time. The Leedham slate also requested and was granted access to the employee break room at The Dial Company on October 18, 2006 for 30 minutes, the same amount of time that Hoffa campaigned in The Dial Company employee break room.
Analysis
Article VII, Section 12(d) of the Rules states:
No restrictions shall be placed upon candidates' or members' preexisting rights to use employer or Union bulletin boards for campaign publicity. Similarly, no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates' or members' preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fund-raising events or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a non-discriminatory basis.
Article VII, Section 12(f) of the Rules declares that "[a]n employer's discrimination between candidates in permitting access to its property shall constitute an improper contribution to the candidate(s) who benefit from such discrimination."
The evidence demonstrates that the named employers granted candidates from the Hoffa and Leedham slates identical access to the same areas upon request. For this reason, we find no discrimination and therefore deem this protest RESOLVED.
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 384
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
Maureen Geraghty
The 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