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

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-439-LU41-MOI




A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (Rules) by George Young, a member of Local Union 41 and a candidate for delegate.  Mr. Young alleges that Doc Conder, a business agent for Local Union 843, violated Article XII, Sections 1(b)(1) of the Rules when he distributed campaign literature on behalf of a slate of candidates while performing union business.


In response, Mr. Condor states that his activities were incidental to the performance of his duties and did not violate the Rules.


This protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Robert Eisler.


The facts underlying this protest are undisputed.  On Saturday, February 17, at around 1:00 p.m., Mr. Conder was present at the Harcross Chemical Company in Kansas City to attend a grievance hearing.  Following the hearing, Mr. Conder walked back to his car through the Harcross parking lot accompanied by two union stewards, Pat Freelon and David Heidrich.  Mr. Heidrich asked Mr. Conder if he had any campaign materials relating to the delegate and alternate delegate election, and Mr. Conder replied that he did.  Mr. Conder reached into the automobile, which he owns, and handed the two stewards the material requested.  Mr. Young witnessed the campaigning and spoke to Mr. Conder shortly thereafter. Mr. Conder then left the Harcross facility in his car for a 1:30 p.m. union-related meeting.


The following day, Mr. Young confronted Mr. Conder regarding his campaign activities, charging that Mr. Conder used a union-owned vehicle to transport campaign materials.  Mr. Conder receives a car allowance from Local Union 41.


Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules prohibits a labor organization as defined by the Rules from contributing anything of value in order to influence a candidates campaign.


In addition, Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules prohibits union officers from campaigning “on time that is paid for by the Union.”  The provision further states, however, that campaigning “incidental to regular Union business is not, however, violative of this section.”


Thus, while a union staff person may not campaign during work, the Rules permit campaign activity that is incidental to work.  In Newhouse, P-253-LU435-RMT (January 4, 1996), the Election Officer determined that a local union staff person who solicited an IBT member to circulate candidate accreditation petitions during the course of transacting legitimate union business while on union time did not violate the Rules.  Similarly, short campaign-related conversations between business agents and stewards which occurred prior to commencement of contract negotiations do not violate the RulesDillon, P-467-LU284-CLE (March 4, 1991).


Based on the undisputed facts, the exchange of campaign materials between Mr. Conder and the two stewards lasted no longer than a few minutes.  Under these circumstances, the Rules have not been violated.


In consideration of the foregoing, the protest is DENIED.