March 11, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Matthew Studd, et al.
March 11, 1996
Page 1
Matthew C. Studd
213 Bradyville Road
Woodbury, TN 37190
David K. Tanksley
1523 Pamela Drive
Lavergne, TN 37086
Jim Waggoner
127 Brooksboro Terrace
Nashville, TN 37217
David Hodgin, President
Teamsters Local Union 327
1006 Russell Street
Nashville, TN 37206
Willie Ellis, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 327
1006 Russell Street
Nashville, TN 37206
Jim Firkus, Terminal Manager
Cassens Transport Company
631 Enon Springs Road
East Smyrna, TN 37167
Cassens Transport Company
145 N. Kansas Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Matthew Studd, et al.
March 11, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-484-LU327-SCE
P-550-LU327-SCE
P-562-LU327-SCE
Gentlemen:
Related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
Matthew Studd, et al.
March 11, 1996
Page 1
Matthew Studd, Jim Waggoner, and David Tanksley, members of Local Union 327 and candidates for the two delegate positions and one alternate delegate position, respectively, on the Rank and File Teamsters for Ron Carey slate. In P-484-LU327-SCE, all three protesters allege that Local Union 385 violated the Rules when it did not approve their requests for time off for campaign purposes. In P-550-LU327-SCE, the protesters allege that the local union violated the Rules when, following intervention by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens and the local union’s agreement that it would approve the protesters’ leave requests, the local union unnecessarily delayed processing the approval, which hurt their ability to campaign. In P-562-LU327-SCE, Mr. Studd alleges that his employer violated the Rules when it unnecessarily delayed its approval of his request for time off for campaign purposes.
The Election Officer consolidated these protests as arising from the same chain of events and as raising similar factual and legal claims.
The protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
On February 5, 1996, Messrs. Studd, Waggoner and Tanksley requested approval from Local Union 385 for three days of leave time for campaign purposes (February 19,
February 26, and March 4) and one day to witness ballot-counting (March 13). The collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) covering all three protesters require written permission for time off from both the employer and the local union. The CBAs do not restrict the reasons for which leave may be requested. The protesters allege that their employers had agreed to the dates requested.
Local Union 385 Secretary-Treasurer Willie Ellis denied the requests on February 9, 1996. In P-484-LU385-SCE, the protesters allege that this denial violated the Rules.
Mr. Ellis and Business Agent Jimmy White nominated and seconded all three members of the only other slate in the local union’s delegate election. The protesters assert that the support of Messrs. Ellis and White for the other slate gives that slate unlimited access to members, while the protesters state they have limited access. This limited access, they agree, was further impaired by Mr. Ellis’ denial of their request.
P-484-LU385-SCE was not filed until February 19, 1996, five working days after Local Union 385 denied the protesters’ requests for time off. Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules requires that all preelection protests “must be filed within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived . . . ” This protest is therefore untimely.
On Thursday, February 22, 1996, Local Union 327 Business Agent White stated to Regional Coordinator Boyens that the local union had never approved time off for campaign purposes under the CBA leave provisions covering the protesters. He also stated that no one had ever asked. In an effort to resolve the protest over the local union’s denial, Mr. Boyens elicited agreement from Mr. White for the local union to approve leave for campaign purposes without agreeing that the CBA leave provisions require it.
Matthew Studd, et al.
March 11, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Ellis contacted Mr. Waggoner at 9:48 a.m. on that Thursday to advise him of this change. Mr. Waggoner asked Mr. Ellis to contact his employer immediately, so that
Messrs. Waggoner and Tanksley could arrange their leave days. Mr. Waggoner alleges that Mr. Ellis agreed, but he further alleges that Mr. Ellis did not contact his employer until
11:23 a.m. on the following day, Friday, February 23. Mr. Waggoner states that by that time, all management personnel with authority to grant leave time had left, which hampered their efforts to take time off on Monday, February 26th.
While Mr. Waggoner did take leave that Monday, he was forced to take it as his only paid personal day. He further states that his taking a personal day prevented the granting of another employee’s request for a personal day (unrelated to campaigning), which forced that employee to take the day off without pay. Mr. Tanksley was not able to take the day off. The three protesters allege in P-550-LU327-SCE that the local union’s one-day delay violated the Rules.
With respect to that delay, Mr. Ellis informed Regional Coordinator Boyens that he left the local union office on February 22 to attend a vote at a Black & Decker facility, supervised by the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Ellis, therefore, contacted Mr. Waggoner’s employer the following morning.
In Moerler, P-754-LU63-CLA (May 10, 1991), the Election Officer for the 1991 International Election examined a leave request for campaign purposes and election observing submitted to an employer under a CBA that did not restrict reasons for requesting leave, like the ones involved in this protest. The Election Officer stated:
While the collective bargaining agreement between the IBT and Vons may permit employees to request unpaid leave for any purpose, the Election Rules only require unpaid leave for “union business” to permit a candidate or his designee to observe the election process.
The current Rules contain the same provision, in Article X, Section 1(f):
Time spent observing shall be considered as time spent on Union business. Therefore, upon written request of any observer, the appropriate Union Officer, business agent, steward, etc., shall so certify to such observer’s employer or to any other person or entity to whom the observer reasonably requests such certification be given. No observer shall use this privilege for the purpose of campaigning. To the extent that the privilege of being given time away from work (i.e., unpaid leave) for Union business is limited, the observers for each candidate, as a group, must be treated equally.
Matthew Studd, et al.
March 11, 1996
Page 1
Thus, the only protection in the Rules with respect to time off is for election observing. The Rules consider this to be union business and subject to a requirement that observers for each candidate, as a group, must be treated equally if the available leave time is limited. The union did grant the leave for the protester to witness ballot-counting. Therefore, the Rules do not require or protect the grant of leave for the purpose of campaigning. See also In Re: Nathaniel Smith, 90 - Elec. App. - 20 (December 21, 1990) (request for “union business” leave for purposes of campaigning not protected); Jordan, P-196-LU337-MGN (November 8, 1996) (same).
In the absence of a showing that Local Union 327 had a policy that did consider campaigning as union business, which Local Union 327 specifically disclaims, the protesters had no protected right to receive the approval they sought from the local union. Furthermore, the efforts of Regional Coordinator Boyens to resolve the original protest informally did not create such a right. The local union agreed to approve such leave without admitting that approval was required. Therefore, the Election Officer does not find on this record that the local union’s allegedly unnecessary one-day delay in approving leave affected a right protected under the Rules.
Accordingly, the protest, P-550-LU327-SCE, is DENIED.
In P-562-LU327-SCE, Mr. Studd alleges that his employer, Cassens Transport, violated the Rules by delaying approval of his request for time off. Mr. Studd originally requested leave on February 6, 1996, and he did not receive approval until February 29. As explained above, obtaining time off for campaign purposes is not a protected right under the Rules, and therefore, the Election Officer will not find any delay by the employer to be a violation of the Rules.
Accordingly, P-562-LU327-SCE 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
Matthew Studd, et al.
March 11, 1996
Page 1
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
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator