March 6, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Nelson Wright
March 6, 1996
Page 1
Nelson Wright, Jr.
2391 Rockknoll Drive
Conley, GA 30027
James P. McClesky, Jr., Sec.-Tres.
Teamsters Local Union 528
2540 Lakewood Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30315
McClesky/Simpkins Slate
Teamsters Local Union 528
2540 Lakewood Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30315
Nelson Wright
March 6, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-492-LU528-SEC
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Nelson Wright, Jr., a member of Local Union 528 and a candidate for delegate on the Hilbish Reform Team slate. Mr. Wright alleges that James McClesky, a delegate candidate on the McClesky-“Chip” Simpkins slate, violated the Rules by distributing campaign literature during a craft meeting that Mr. Wright was conducting in the Local Union 528 hall.
Local Union 528 held a general membership meeting on the morning of February 17, 1996. Later that day, Mr. Wright held a craft meeting for employees of Dobbs International.
Mr. McClesky admits that he distributed campaign literature to some attendees of the craft meeting, but he contends that the meeting was over. He also contends that Local Union 528 does not have a policy against campaigning inside the union hall and that several persons leafleted in the hall after the close of the general membership meeting that morning.
This protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Maureen Geraghty.
Nelson Wright
March 6, 1996
Page 1
The Rules distinguish between campaigning inside and outside a local union hall. Outside, members have a right to campaign that the union cannot restrain: “All Union members retain the right . . . to distribute campaign literature and to otherwise solicit support for a member’s candidacy outside a meeting hall before, during and after a Union meeting, regardless of Union policy, rule or practice.” Article VIII, Section 11(a).
Whether a right exists to campaign inside a union hall, however, depends on past practice.
[N]o restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fund-raising events or engage in similar activities on . . . Union premises. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Article VIII, Section 11(d) (emphasis added).
Therefore, the relevant inquiry is whether the local union had a policy or practice of allowing or prohibiting campaigning within the union hall. See, Passo, P-469-LU705-CHI et seq. (March 1, 1996); Wright, P-379-LU100-SCE (February 5, 1991); Teller,
P-118-LU174-PNW (January 9, 1991); Walker, P-162-LU722-SCE (January 9, 1991); Teller, P-096-LU741-PNW (January 2, 1991).
Local Union 528 President Ken Hilbish states that Local Union 528 has had an unwritten policy prohibiting campaigning within the union hall for at least the last 20 years. The Election Officer notes that Mr. Hilbish made the same assertion to Adjunct Regional Coordinator Geraghty in the context of Deane, P-354-LU528-SEC (February 21, 1996).
Mr. Hilbish’s description of the local union’s policy was corroborated by Mr. Wright and by Rob Hickey, an employee of the local union.
With respect to Mr. McClesky’s allegation that leafleting took place in the union hall after the general membership meeting that morning, four witnesses stated to Ms. Geraghty that they saw no such activity. Those witnesses were Mr. Hilbish, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wright and Don Toney, former vice president and trustee of Local Union 528. Mr. Toney further reported that he did see two business agents campaigning that morning in the parking lot. Hence, the Election Officer finds that there are no additional incidents of campaigning inside the union hall that would support Mr. McClesky’s contention that it is a pre-existing right.
The Election Officer finds that Local Union 528 had an unwritten, established policy prohibiting campaigning in the union hall. Therefore, Mr. McClesky’s admitted campaigning within the meeting room on February 17, 1996, violated the Rules.
Accordingly, the protest is GRANTED.
Nelson Wright
March 6, 1996
Page 1
When the Election Officer finds the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIV, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
In these circumstances, the Election Officer found Mr. McClesky improperly campaigned inside the union hall on one occasion. Thus, she orders Mr. McClesky to immediately cease and desist from campaigning inside the union hall and to comply with Local Union 528’s policy with respect to campaigning in the union hall, under which such activity is currently prohibited.
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
Maureen Geraghty, Adjunct Regional Coordinator