OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: DEREK CORREIA, ) Protest Decision 2021 ESD 75
ERIC ROBINSON, ) Issued: March 9, 2021
and NORMAN SAUCEDA, ) OES Case Nos. P-082-022321-FW,
) P-084-022521-FW, &
Protestors. ) P-092-022621-FW
____________________________________)
Derek Correia, Eric Robinson, and Norman Sauceda, members of Local Union 542, filed a pre-election protest in Case No. P-082-022321-FW, pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protest alleged that Costco denied them access to a parking lot to campaign at the San Marcos CA store.
Correia and Robinson filed an additional protest in Case No. P-084-022521-FW, alleging that Costco denied them access to the parking lot to campaign at the Chula Vista CA store.
Correia filed a third protest in Case No. P-092-022621-FW, alleging that Local Union 542 principal officer Jaime Vasquez and his business agents conspired to enlist and extort the support of Costco management to deny parking lot access to Correia and supporters of his slate.
Election Supervisor representative Bruce Boyens investigated these protests. They were consolidated for decision.
Findings of Fact
Local Union 542 will elect 10 delegates and 6 alternate delegates to the IBT convention. The Members for Members 542 slate, comprised of rank-and-file members, is competing against the Teamsters 542 Members First slate, consisting of local union officials and rank-and-file members. The protestors here are candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate.
The first protest arose on February 22, 2021, when Correia, Robinson, Sauceda and supporters of the Members for Members 542 slate sought to campaign at the Costco retail store in San Marcos CA. The store is surrounded by a sprawling parking lot of approximately 9 acres. The campaigners took up positions close to the main customer entrance, immediately across the fire lane from the store and in the parking lot where customers park. They were met there by an assistant store manager, who told them they could not campaign there and directed them to leave. One of the campaigners recorded a 35-second video clip of the exchange with the manager. The exchange with the manager apparently started before the recording commenced and continued after the recording was ended. What was recorded included the following exchange:
Manager: I don’t want to be argumentative, but I would suggest that you just leave at this point. You can call your attorneys.
Correia: Ok.
Manager: And I will let Fletcher know, and I will let Richard know, and all of our labor relations. But at this point, just non-cooperative, I’m asking you guys to leave. That’s the bottom line.
Correia: So you’re asking us to leave your parking lot?
Manager: Yes. I’m telling you to leave.
Another campaigner: You’re telling us to leave.
Manager: I’m telling you guys to leave, yeah.
Correia: So just so we’re good on communication here, and I’m not trying to be an ass –
Manager: Well, I told you where you could go, and you know where you’re supposed to be –
Correia: No, no – I have witnesses.
Manager: -- and you’re not.
Correia: You’re not telling me –
Another campaigner: You just said you’re not going to tell us where they park their cars.
Manager: But am I – do you have something that I’m required to tell you that?
Correia: That’s ok.
The campaigners then left the San Marcos Costco.
Costco employees at the San Marcos facility are directed to park their vehicles in the corner of the lot at the north end of the property, some 600 to 700 feet from the building where they work and more than 500 feet from the location where the campaigners met the manager. The campaigners did not attempt to campaign in the location where employees park their vehicles. Rather, they were directed to leave the location where retail customers park and where employees are not permitted to park.
The second protest arose two days later, on February 24, 2021, when Correia, Robinson, and other supporters of the slate sought to campaign at the Costco retail establishment in Chula Vista CA. This store is in a more densely built area; its surface lot for customers is approximately half the size of that at San Marcos. Once again, the campaigners commenced campaigning in the parking lot where retail customers park their vehicles. They were met by an assistant store manager, and a Local Union 542 steward appeared as well. The ensuing conversation took place at the store entrance. A video of 5 minutes and 22 seconds recorded the exchange. The manager told the campaigners they could not campaign in the parking lot. The steward stated the same thing, elaborating as follows: “From what I know, from what we’ve been told, you guys have the right to ask for votes, but you can’t come onto the premises. You guys can do it over there [gesturing], but you can’t do it on the premises itself.” The manager also gestured to a location “outside our line.” Correia then replied, “The IBT rules give us access to the parking lot [gesturing to the lot where retail customers park], not over there [gesturing].” Correia then disputed the steward’s participation in the conversation. The steward replied, “I’ve been told by the office how we have to handle this. You guys have every right to be here, but you can’t be on the premises. So to us, being over there [gesturing], you can be over there on the corner by the stop sign.” The manager told the campaigners that the rules were the same “for his team,” referring to the steward. At this, the campaigners left.
Investigation showed that local union members employed at the Costco Chula Vista facility are not permitted to park in the lot where customers park their vehicles. Instead, they park in a 3-story parking deck of the Regal Cinemas 16, immediately east of the Costco customer parking lot. Three large white sandwich boards mark the entrance to the parking deck. They read, “Costco Wholesale Employee Parking Only.” The campaigners were not barred from this location.
The third protest alleged that the Local Union 542 administration “enlisted or extorted the support of Costco” to keep candidates and supporters of the Members for Members 542 slate “from exercising our parking lot access rights.” The evidence presented in support of this protest consisted of the video clips referenced above and, in particular, the statements on one clip by the steward at Chula Vista evidencing what he was told about “how we have to handle this.” Jaime Vasquez, local union principal officer, told our investigator that business agents and stewards have been informed about the right of campaigners to campaign in parking lots where employees park their cars. He denied instructing any business agents or stewards to interfere with such campaign activity, and he further denied the claim that the administration “enlisted or extorted” Costco to interfere with campaigning in parking lots where employees park their vehicles.
Analysis
Article VII, Section 12(e) grants candidates for delegate or alternate delegate and any member of their local union the right to campaign “in any parking lot used by that Local Union’s members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment.” The right does not extend to all parking lots controlled by the employer; rather, it is limited to those lots where employees park their vehicles. The purpose of this provision is to permit campaigners face-to-face contact with members to solicit their support. This provision, specifically approved as an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,[1] constitutes a narrow exception to the general rule that permits an owner or lawful occupier of land to control who may enter the land and what they may do there.
The protestors did not campaign in parking lots in San Marcos or Chula Vista where Costco employees park their vehicles. Rather, they sought to campaign in lots where Costco customers park. Such campaigning does not enjoy the protection of Article VII, Section 12(e), and Costco management did not violate the Rules by directing the campaigners to leave the premises.
The Rules place no obligation on employers to instruct campaigners where employees park their vehicles, and the manager at San Marcos did not violate the Rules by failing or refusing to disclose that information. At Chula Vista, where a manager and the steward directed the campaigners to the location where campaigning was permitted, the campaigners did not campaign there. Instead, they filed protests alleging their parking lot access rights were violated.
The error of the protestors’ position is revealed by Correia’s statement to the steward at Chula Vista – “The IBT rules give us access to the parking lot, not over there.” His statement incorrectly asserts that the campaigners have the right to campaign in the customer parking lot, when the Rules protect campaigning only in parking lots where employees park their vehicles.
The claim that Local Union 542 obtained Costco’s action to interfere with the campaigners’ right to campaign in employer parking lots where employees park their vehicles fails for two reasons. First, the campaigners did not campaign or seek to campaign in such lots; rather, they sought to campaign only where customers park and where employees are prohibited from parking. Second, the sole evidence presented by the protestors to substantiate the allegation that the local union enlisted Costco’s interference is the statement of the steward. The steward correctly stated that campaigners could not campaign where retail customers park, and the Costco manager made clear that this prohibition was enforced uniformly. We will not find improper interference by the local union under circumstances where an employer exercises its legitimate property rights on a non-discriminatory basis and does not impinge on campaign rights under Article VII, Section 5(e).
For these reasons, we DENY all three protests.
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. Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i). All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Barbara Jones
Election Appeals Master
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
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, all within the time prescribed above. Service may be accomplished by email, using the “reply all” function on the email by which the party received this decision. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones
2021 ESD 75
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
braymond@teamster.org
Edward Gleason
egleason@gleasonlawdc.com
Patrick Szymanski
szymanskip@me.com
Will Bloom
wbloom@dsgchicago.com
Tom Geoghegan
tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com
Rob Colone
rmcolone@hotmail.com
Barbara Harvey
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Kevin Moore
Mooregp2021@gmail.com
F.C. “Chris” Silvera
fitzverity@aol.com
Fred Zuckerman
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
ken@tdu.org
Derek Correia
Dmcorreia13@aol.com
Eric Robinson
Eric.robinson@gmail.com
Norman Sauceda
Pureflow7@gmail.com
Jaime Vasquez
jvasquez@teamsters542.org
Costco
725 Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Costco
825 E. H Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Bruce Boyens
boyensb@aol.com
Michael Miller
Miller.michael.j@verizon.net
Deborah Schaaf
dschaaf@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com
[1] United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 88 Civ,. 4486, D.I. 4628 (S.D.N.Y. February 14, 2020).