OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: MIKE DeVEGA, ) Protest Decision 2021 ESD 165
) Issued: October 22, 2021
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-175-092121-MW
____________________________________)
Mike DeVega, member of Local Union 705, filed a pre-election protest 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 campaigners for Terry Hancock and the Teamster Power slate used union resources to campaign, in violation of the Rules.
Election Supervisor representative Joe Childers investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
On Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Bill Kimball and 2 others campaigned for the Teamster Power slate and Hancock in the parking lot of the UPS hub in Palatine IL. They drove there in a Chevy Z71 crew cab pickup truck assigned to Kimball by his employer.
The truck, decorated in an American flag wrap, bears the IBT’s horses-and-wheel logo on each side and the tailgate, on which are written “Joint Council 25 – LMCC Task Force.” The vehicle was in the parking lot where employees park but was not in a designated parking space. Instead, it was parked along a chain-link fence adjacent to the guard house employees pass through to enter the worksite.
The protestor alleged that use of the truck constituted impermissible use of union resources in 2 distinct ways, first by transporting the campaigners to the site to campaign, and second by positioning the truck “as a prop/backdrop to their campaigning activity to lend it legitimacy.”
Article VII, Section 12(c) generally prohibits use of union resources to assist in campaigning. However, “Union officers and employees provided with Union-owned or leased cars, if otherwise afforded the right to utilize those cars for personal activities, may 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.”
Investigation showed that Kimball is employed by the Labor-Management Cooperation Committee of Joint Council 25, a joint labor-management committee authorized by federal law which is comprised in equal parts of management and union representatives. The function of this LMCC is to resolve complaints involving trucking and material handling at various construction sites within the joint council’s jurisdiction. The truck Kimball drives is issued to him for business as well as personal use. The personal use of the truck is part of his compensation as a taxable fringe benefit. Payroll records demonstrate that $50 of his compensation is withheld weekly to pay the taxes associated with the personal use of the vehicle.
On the first point the protestor raised, Kimball did not violate the Rules by driving the LMCC pickup to the Palatine worksite to campaign. As Independent Administrator Lacey stated in In re: Gregory, 91 - Elec. App. - 135 (SA) (April 29, 1991), “given that Local-owned cars are used by Business Agents for personal reasons, it is not a violation of the Election Rules for a Business Agent to use his car to travel to a worksite to campaign.” See also, Sterner & Kieffer, P-389 (February 27, 1996) (use of union vehicles for personal travel, including campaigning, is permitted, provided that expenses associated with the personal use is borne by the individual). This rule extends even to the display of campaign bumper stickers on union-supplied vehicles, provided the union permits its officers and agents to use the cars for personal purposes. Carr, 1991 EAM 143 (May 2, 1991); Blake, P712 (April 29, 1996), aff’d, 1996 EAM 185 (May 10, 1996); 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, 2001 EAM 42 (March 9, 2001). Because Kimball’s use of the pickup for personal purposes is part of his compensation from the LMCC, on which he pays employment taxes, he is permitted under the Rules to drive the vehicle to a worksite on personal time for the purpose of campaigning.
On the protestor’s second point, the location where the vehicle was parked, investigation showed that Kimball initially parked the vehicle in a designated parking spot within the lot. However, because of inclement weather and his desire to keep his supply of campaign flyers dry, Kimball asked the security guard on duty for permission to move the vehicle to the location adjacent to the guard house where he and the others were campaigning. The guard granted permission. On these facts, we find no Rules violation. Given that Kimball is permitted personal use of the vehicle, he is permitted to park it in any location that is authorized, whether in a marked parking spot or in a location explicitly permitted by competent authority. To the extent that the protest contends that Kimball was granted access that was denied to other campaigners, the protestor has not demonstrated that he requested similar access, an essential prerequisite to his protest. Cobb, 2001 EAM 100 (October 19, 2001).
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the protest with respect to the use and positioning of the truck.
The protest’s final allegation is that a partisan sticker of the type Kimball and his compatriots distributed that day was affixed to a bollard adjacent to the guard house. Kimball denied that he or his fellow campaigners placed the sticker there. The sticker was removed promptly after the protest was filed. As we have held repeatedly, such use of employer assets to display campaign material violates the Rules. Based on the prompt removal of the sticker, we deem the protest RESOLVED and order no further remedy in addition to the standing cease-and-desist order imposed in Glimco & Wimunc, 2021 ESD 160 (October 18, 2021), and Warren, 2021 ESD 162 (October 20, 2021).
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 165
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
Fred Zuckerman
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
ken@tdu.org
Scott Jenkins
scott@oz2021.com
Mike DeVega
mikedevega@att.net
Bill Kimball
uniondriv@aol.com
Teamsters Joint Council 25
Terry Hancock
tjh@teamsters731.org
Joe Childers
jchilders@ibtvote.org
Bill Broberg
wbroberg@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com