This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters


for the



IN RE: HOFFA-HALL 2016,                        )           Protest Decision 2015 ESD 20

                                                                        )           Issued: August 11, 2015

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-023-072915-FW                 



            Hoffa-Hall 2016 filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that Richard Galvan and fellow campaigners violated the Rules by blocking ingress and egress from a UPS facility while campaigning and by wearing UPS uniforms while campaigning off duty.


            Election Supervisor representative Michael Miller investigated this protest.


Findings of Fact


            This protest concerns campaign activity that is the subject of our decision in Galvan, 2015 ESD 19 (August 11, 2015).  There, we held that a UPS labor relations representative impermissibly interfered with the campaign activity of Richard Galvan, member of Local Union 396 and candidate for International office, and two other campaigners by barring them from campaigning in a parking lot at the Gardena, California facility where employees park their cars and for which a preexisting right to campaign exists, and by discriminating against Galvan and his fellow campaigners while permitting Hoffa-Hall campaigners to campaign in the same space. 


            With this protest, Hoffa-Hall submits that Galvan and others violated the Rules by blocking ingress and egress to the UPS facility during the course of the campaign activity that was the subject of Galvan.  Hoffa-Hall further submits that Galvan and at least one other campaigner violated the Rules by wearing their UPS uniforms while campaigning.


            In Galvan, we found as fact that the campaigners did not block, impede, or interfere with ingress and egress to the UPS facility by UPS employees employed there.  Although the protest here alleged that Galvan et al “set[] up their petition table almost blocking a narrow corridor that is the only path from the parking lot … into the facility,” all evidence demonstrated that the campaigners did not block, impede, or interfere with access to the walkway leading to the facility, whether with their persons or with their campaign table.  Instead, as our finding of fact in Galvan establishes, all witnesses interviewed – the Galvan campaigners, the witnesses identified to us by Hoffa-Hall, and UPS officials – stated that UPS employees had free access to the facility without interference or “blockading” (as the protest alleged) by the Galvan campaigners.  We adhere to that factual finding here.


            The protest also alleged that the campaigners extracted an impermissible and involuntary employer contribution from UPS by wearing their UPS uniforms while campaigning, which the protest alleged suggested that UPS endorsed the campaign activity.  On this aspect of the protest, investigation showed that Galvan and one other campaigner wore the UPS-authorized brown uniforms that package car and feeder drivers wear.  The two are employed as feeder drivers by UPS, although not at the Gardena facility.  Both were scheduled to work that morning at a UPS location other than the Gardena facility.


            Galvan and his fellow campaigners told our investigator that in the current and past elections, they wore their UPS uniforms when campaigning on days they also were scheduled to work, whether campaigning at the facilities where they were employed or at other UPS facilities.  All told our investigator that they had never been questioned or confronted by UPS about wearing the uniform in such circumstances.  Indeed, on July 23 when UPS labor relations representative Dunkel moved the campaigners to another location on the Gardena facility premises, Dunkel said nothing to the campaigners about wearing UPS uniforms while campaigning off duty.


            Witnesses aligned with Hoffa-Hall said that UPS policy did not permit the wearing of UPS uniforms while campaigning off duty in circumstances such as those seen here.  In support of this proposition, one union official submitted the “Uniforms” article from the UPS collective bargaining agreement, which states that uniforms shall be supplied by the employer at no cost to the employee, and further states the following:


It is agreed that each employee shall put on the uniform before reporting for duty and shall remove the uniform after being relieved from duty each day.  It is agreed that time spent in putting on and taking off the uniform shall not be paid for by the Employer.


Jay Phillips, president of Local Union 396, and Rick Middleton, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 572, told our investigator that the July 23 campaigning in UPS uniform was impermissible, although they disagreed as to the reasoning.  Phillips said that campaigning in uniform at a facility where the member is employed is permissible before or after the member’s shift but impermissible at a facility where the member is not employed, even if he is scheduled to work that day at his home facility.  Middleton said that campaigning off duty in uniform is impermissible under any circumstances, and if a member wished to campaign even at his home facility before clocking on duty that day he could not wear his UPS uniform while doing so.


            Significantly, UPS policy does not prohibit wearing of uniforms off duty nor campaigning on premises but during non-work time while wearing uniforms.  Both labor relations representative Dunkel and Gardena facility manager Roger Flores stated that they did not view the Galvan campaigners who wore UPS uniforms to violate UPS policy by doing so. 




Article VII, Section 12(d) states that “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.” 


Evidence presented on this protest establishes a preexisting right to wear UPS uniforms and engage in campaign activity addressed to other IBT members when off duty and in non-work areas of UPS facilities.  Thus, the evidence presented by the Galvan campaigners, which we credit, demonstrated that they had campaigned in uniform at UPS facilities without objection from any source over many electoral periods.  When interviewed by our investigator, UPS officials did not object that two of the three Galvan campaigners were in uniform.


The contract language presented during the investigation does not prohibit wearing of UPS uniforms under the circumstances presented here.  That language establishes merely that employees will not don or change out of their uniforms on time paid for by the employer.  No UPS policy we reviewed bars the wearing of UPS uniforms when campaigning off duty in non-work areas on UPS property.


In Laszlo, 2011 ESD 87 (January 27, 2011), we denied a protest that alleged a campaign website photo of a candidate wearing an employer-provided uniform constituted an impermissible employer contribution.  We noted that campaign literature showing members in uniform did not constitute employer contributions.  Further, we found that the photo in question was taken when the employee was off duty and that the employer did not have a policy prohibiting wearing of uniforms in such circumstances.  Just as in Laszlo, we note that the Galvan campaigners who were in uniform were off duty when campaigning, and we find that UPS does not have a policy prohibiting campaigning in uniform by off duty UPS employees in non-work areas of UPS facilities. See also Ostrach and Hoffa 2006, 2006 ESD 304 (June 24, 2006) (campaign literature depicting employer assets (trucks) and members in employer uniforms did not violate the Rules). 


For these reasons, we DENY 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:


Kathleen A. Roberts

Election Appeals Master


620 Eighth Avenue, 34th floor

New York, NY 10018


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, 1050 17th Street, N.W., Suite 375, Washington, D.C. 20036, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.


                                                                        Richard W. Mark

                                                                        Election Supervisor

cc:        Kathleen A. Roberts

            2015 ESD 20  




Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001


David J. Hoffa

1701 K Street NW, Ste 350

Washington DC 20036


Ken Paff

Teamsters for a Democratic Union

P.O. Box 10128

Detroit, MI 48210-0128


Barbara Harvey

1394 E. Jefferson Avenue

Detroit, MI 48207


Teamsters United

315 Flatbush Avenue, #501

Brooklyn, NY 11217


Louie Nikolaidis

350 West 31st Street, Suite 40

New York, NY 10001


Julian Gonzalez

350 West 31st Street, Suite 40

New York, NY 10001


David O’Brien Suetholz

515 Park Avenue

Louisville, KY 45202


Fred Zuckerman

P.O. Box 9493

Louisville, KY 40209


Richard Galvan

1208 E. Dalton Avenue

Glendora, CA 91741


Darren Jones

United Parcel Service

55 Glenlake Parkway

Atlanta, GA 30328


Craig Holmes

United Parcel Service

55 Glenlake Parkway

Atlanta, GA 30328


Teamsters Local Union 572

450 E. Carson Plaza Drive

Carson, CA 90746


Teamsters Local Union 396

880 S. Oak Park Road, Suite 200

Covina, CA 91724


Michael Miller

P.O. Box 251673

Los Angeles, CA 90025-1673


Deborah Schaaf

1521 Grizzly Gulch

Helena, MT 59601


Jeffrey Ellison

214 S. Main Street, Suite 210

Ann Arbor, MI 48104