March 6, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Dale Grossman
March 6, 1996
Page 1
Dale Grossman
3668 Bader Court
Westerville, OH 43081
Harold Powell, President
Teamsters Local Union 284
555 E. Rich Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Don Mann, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 284
555 E. Rich Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Paul Suffoletto
Teamsters Local Union 284
555 E. Rich Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Dale Grossman
March 6, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Officer Case No. P-476-LU284-CLE
Gentlemen:
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 Dale Grossman, a member of Local Union 284 and a candidate for delegate. Mr. Grossman makes the following contentions: (1) that Paul Suffoletto, a business agent employed by Local Union 284, distributed campaign literature to members employed by Amana-Delaware (“Amana”) during union paid work time; (2) that Don Mann, an employee of Amana, distributed campaign literature during his work time; (3) that the posting of campaign literature on a union bulletin board at the Amana facility violated the Rules; (4) that Harold Powell, Local Union 284 president, engaged in the distribution of campaign literature on union time at a plant operated by the Anheuser-Busch company; and (5) that the slate which opposes his has announced an “election party” at Local Union 284’s union hall on March 2, 1996 and that this “party” is an improper use of union facilities under the Rules.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Joyce Goldstein.
Dale Grossman
March 6, 1996
Page 1
1. Background
Local Union 284 held its nomination meeting on January 27, 1996. The ballots for the delegate election were mailed on February 28, 1996 and will be counted on March 27, 1996.
Mr. Suffoletto, Mr. Mann and Mr. Powell are all candidates for delegate on the Powell Team slate. Mr. Grossman is a candidate for delegate affiliated with an opposition slate. During the second week of February, the Powell Team produced and distributed at various work sites a notice (“the notice”) which read as follows:
Powell Team
Election Party
March 2, 1996
7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
Teamsters Union Hall
555 East Rich Street
Local 284 Members and one Guest
Food and Beverage Provided
Disc Jockey
Mr. Powell and several other delegate candidates on his slate were elected to local union office in an election held in December 1995.
2. Allegations of Campaigning at the Amana Facility
The evidence establishes that Mr. Suffoletto appeared at the Amana facility at 5:45 a.m. on February 14, 1996 and took a position in the parking lot. He met Mr. Mann whose shift was set to begin at 6:00 a.m. Mr. Mann took a supply of the notices of the election party.
Mr. Suffoletto was scheduled to begin his union work day at 8:00 a.m. at the Amana facility. A stewards’ meeting had previously been arranged for that time. All of his campaign distribution activities were completed prior to 8:00 a.m. He drove a union-leased automobile to the site. Local Union 284 business agents are permitted to use the vehicles assigned to them for personal activities.
Later that day and through the remainder of the week, Mr. Mann engaged in the distribution of the party notices. Some of these announcements were circulated during his break times. But, by his own admission, these notices were also distributed by Mr. Mann while operating a forklift at the employer during work time and in areas where work is performed.
Mr. Mann states that the supervisors regularly permit him to distribute materials while he is working as long as he gets his work done.
In order to rule upon the allegations presented here, the Election Officer must first determine if the notice is campaign literature. Mr. Powell contends that the notice was intended to announce a gathering of members and their guests to celebrate a political victory in a local union election.
Dale Grossman
March 6, 1996
Page 1
The Rules, at Article I, do not pertain to materials distributed in campaigns for local union office. Nor do the Rules regulate campaign materials which announce or advertise local election victory celebrations. Here, however, the notice does not communicate a clear message with respect to the purpose of the party. It announces only an “election party” for the Powell Team and does not distinguish between the local election, which was held in December of 1995, and the current delegate election for which the ballots were mailed on February 28, 1996, and in which Mr. Powell’s slate is running as the Powell Team. These circumstances dictate the conclusion that the party notice, at least in part, relates to the ongoing delegate election and therefore must be considered as campaign literature.
The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(b), guarantee to all union officers and employees (if members) the right to participate in campaign activities. This provision continues with the following limitation:
However, such campaigning must not involve the expenditure of union funds. Accordingly, officers and employees (and other members) of the Union may not campaign on time that is paid for by the Union.
Article VIII, Section 11(c) of the Rules prohibits the use of “union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc.” for the purpose of campaigning unless certain specific conditions are met. That section contains the following proviso:
Union officers and employees provided with union-owned or leased cars, if otherwise afforded the right to use 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.
The evidence shows without contradiction that Mr. Suffoletto traveled to the Amana plant prior to his scheduled work time and did not engage in the activity of distributing campaign materials once his work time began. It is further evident that Mr. Powell did not engage in campaign activities during his scheduled work time. The use by the two delegates of their respective union-leased automobiles was consistent with their own work rules and with the policy of Local Union 284 relating to the use of vehicles. There is no evidence that Local
Union 284 incurred any additional expenses as a result of the campaign-related conduct of either
Mr. Suffoletto or Mr. Powell.
The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11 also do not permit IBT members to campaign during their working hours, unless such campaigning is incidental to the member’s work. Article VIII, Section 11(e) similarly provides that rights to participate in campaign activity are not “available to an employee on working time, may not be exercised among employees who are on working time and do not extend to campaigning which would materially interfere with the normal business activities of the employer.”
Dale Grossman
March 6, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Mann admits that he distributed some of the notices during work hours. He even recounts that his activities were observed by a supervisor, who said nothing. Such detours from regular duties, he states, are tolerated as long as the work gets done. There is no evidence that while engaged in the distribution of the notices, Mr. Mann failed to perform his work for his employer, deviated from his prescribed duties, or interfered with any other employee’s work. Some distributing of the notice on work time, under circumstances tolerated by the employer, is within the parameters of incidental campaigning and is not a violation of the Rules. See, Benson, Post-67-LU104-RMT (April 16, 1991).
3. Allegations of Bulletin Board Posting at Amana
The notice was also placed on a bulletin board in the cafeteria area at the Amana plant. This locality contains four separate bulletin boards. Two of the boards are designated for “Company Notices Only,” another is marked for “Union Notices Only.” The fourth board is reserved for employee notices. These bulletin board designations are not particularly well enforced, although notices posted on an improper bulletin board are generally relocated by a company or union official. Mr. Grossman observed a party notice on a bulletin board in the area marked for official union notices only. This particular bulletin board also displayed a posting containing election rules and a list of delegate candidates.
Article VIII, Section 11(d) of the Rules state:
No restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ pre-existing rights to use employer or Union bulletin boards for campaign publicity.
Past practice is a relevant consideration in determining whether a pre-existing right to use bulletin boards for campaign-related purposes has previously been established. Meyer,
P-130-LU600-MOI, et seq. (October 12, 1995); Blake, P-953-LU848-CLA (October 30, 1991). The evidence presented indicates the continuation of a pre-existing right to use company and union bulletin boards to campaign. The bulletin board designations at Amana are, at times, disregarded by employees. The activities of company supervisors or union officials in moving these postings to the proper bulletin board was reported by Mr. Grossman. It is noted that no person attempted to move the party notices on this occasion. In any event, the vague reference to improperly posted materials being moved do not compare to, or establish a firm and regularly enforced company or union policy providing unequivocal notice to employees and members that the posting of campaign materials is prohibited or limited. No evidence of such a policy has been submitted and in its absence, and on the basis of this evidence, the required pre-existing right must be determined to have been in place. In these circumstances, the posting is not in violation of the Rules.
4. Allegations of Campaigning at Anheuser-Busch
Dale Grossman
March 6, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Powell arrived at the Anheuser-Busch facility in Columbus, Ohio, on February 12, 1996 at 5:30 a.m. His admitted purpose was to pass out the party notices and he did so until approximately 8:05 that morning. He drove his union-leased vehicle to this location. There is no evidence that Mr. Powell had any duties to perform in connection with his work on behalf of Local Union 284 until after 9:00 a.m that morning. Therefore, these activities did not violate the Rules.
5. Allegations Concerning Improper Use of Union Resources
The Powell Team, at the time of the investigation of this protest, did in fact plan to sponsor a “Powell Team Election Party” at the union hall on March 2, 1996. The party was for the purpose of celebrating the election victory of Mr. Powell and other new union officers.
The use of the union hall by the Powell Team for the election party for local union officers is not within the jurisdiction of the Election Officer. Article I.
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Joyce Goldstein, Regional Coordinator