April 2, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Amadeo E. Bianchi
12920 N.W. Miami Court
North Miami, FL 33168
Peter Herdy
Budget Rent-A-Car of Miami
3901 N.W. 28th Street
Miami, FL 33142
Re: Election Office Case No. P-526-LU390-SEC
Gentlemen:
Amadeo Bianchi, a member of Local Union 390, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protester alleges that he and other supporters of the New Teamster Delegate Slate were denied access to the employee parking lot at a Budget Rent-A-Car location at the Miami, Florida airport, on February 22, 1996, and were thereby unable to campaign for their slate. The Election Officer deferred this protest for post-election review pursuant to her authority under the Rules, Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2).
Regional Coordinator J. Griffin Morgan investigated the protest.
Budget Rent-A-Car admits that it denied access to the employee parking lot to the protester, as a matter of company policy.
On March 8, 1996, the mail ballots for the delegate election at Local Union 309 were counted. There were two slates competing for two delegate position and one alternate position. The results were as follows:
Amadeo E. Bianchi
April 2, 1996
Page 1
Name Slate/Independent Number of Votes
C. Lark Lark, Taylor, Pape Progressive 590
J. Taylor Lark, Taylor, Pape Progressive 588
A. Bianchi New Teamster 227
L. Alexander New Teamster 220
The results of the election for alternate delegate were as follows:
Name Slate/Independent Number of Votes
G. Pape Lark, Taylor, Pape Progressive 602
L. Cebada New Teamster 210
The limited-access rule has been designed to infringe upon any employer’s property rights only to the extent necessary to implement the goals of the Consent Decree providing for supervision of the delegate and International officer elections. In United States v. IBT, No. 88 Civ. 4486 (S.D.N.Y. August 22, 1995), the court approved the limited-access rule, finding it “crucial to the achievement of a free, fair, and democratic election process.” Id., slip op.
at 42. See George, P-451-LU391-SEC (February 21, 1996).
After discussion with the Election Officer’s representative and after the delegate election, Budget agreed that access to member-employees would be permitted for campaigning for the International election. Such campaigning may occur in the employee parking lot at the airport. Spaces shall be allotted to Budget employees and segregated from other employees. Budget has asked that the airport manager be contacted with the identity of any members proposing to campaign before such campaigning takes place.
Under these circumstances, the Election Officer would normally conclude that the protest is resolved. However, the protest is being considered in a post-election context. The issue which must then be addressed, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 3(b) of the Rules, is whether any conduct giving rise to a violation of the Rules may have affected the outcome of the election. The protester was not advised prior to the delegate election that Budget would permit access to its workforce consistent with the Rules. Thus, the employer’s no-access policy was in effect during the delegate election, in violation of the Rules.
There are approximately 30 members of Local Union 390 employed at Budget. However, there was a difference of 261 votes between the total received bsy the winning candidate with the lesser number of votes and the losing candidate with the higher number of votes. Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that it is not reasonably probable that the lack of access to Budget employees at the Miami airport affected the outcome of the Local
Union 390 delegate election. See generally Naslanic, P-195-LU243-MGN (May 2, 1991); Schweitzer, Post-58-LU896-CLA (May 1, 1991); Rodriguez, Post-59-LU630-CLA (May 22, 1991); Cox, Post-47-LU771-PHL (April 19, 1991) (finding employer’s failure to permit access to premises for campaigning did not affect outcome of election).
Amadeo E. Bianchi
April 2, 1996
Page 1
Accordingly, 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
J. Griffin Morgan, Regional Coordinator