April 17, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Louise Sullivan
April 17, 1996
Page 1
Louise Sullivan
5631 S. Cottage Grove
Chicago, IL 60637
Robin Sullivan
Teamsters Local Union 743
300 S. Ashland Avenue
Chicago, IL 60607
Eddie Kornegay, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 743
300 S. Ashland Avenue
Chicago, IL 60607
Louise Sullivan
April 17, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-703-LU743-CHI
Gentlepersons:
Louise Sullivan, a member of Local Union 743, 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”) against Local Union 743 Business Agent Robin Sullivan, a candidate for delegate on the Local 743 Movement to Members (“MTM”) slate. The protester alleges that Ms. Sullivan violated the Rules by holding a campaign meeting at a work site while on union time.
Ms. Sullivan responds that she was conducting union business at the work site and not campaigning. She admits that while there, she responded to at least one question from a member about the delegate election.
Adjunct Regional Coordinator Dennis M. Sarsany investigated the protest.
Louise Sullivan
April 17, 1996
Page 1
Ms. Sullivan is assigned to represent employees of the Medical Records Department at the University of Chicago Woodlawn Maternal and Child Care Clinic (“Woodlawn Clinic” or “clinic”). On April 2, 1996, she stopped at the Woodlawn Clinic to deliver grievance forms and change-in-status forms to Sharon Dennis, a shop steward employed there. When the charged party arrived at the clinic, Ms. Dennis was not at her workplace. While she was waiting for her to return, Ms. Sullivan was approached by a number of Local Union 743 members who had various questions. Other members questioned Ms. Sullivan after
Ms. Dennis returned. Most of the questions concerned a lay-off program recently announced at the clinic. A few of the questions concerned the delegate election and the dispute between the two slates in the delegate election. The charged party concedes that some of her comments could be considered campaigning, such as her telling members that she is a candidate on the MTM slate. The charged party was at the clinic for about 20 minutes.
The protester had no direct knowledge of the charged party’s visit to the clinic. She referred the Regional Coordinator to a witness who based the protest on portions of the charged party’s conversations the witness overheard while at the clinic. Based upon the investigation, the Election Officer credits the charged party and her witness, Ms. Dennis. The charged party was candid in admitting that she did campaign on union time. The protester did not witness the conversations and the protester’s witness only heard portions of the conversations.
Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules states, in pertinent part, that local union officers and employees, if members,
. . . retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right . . . to openly support or oppose any candidate . . . 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. Campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, violative of this section.
This section protects the personal right of local union officers and employees to campaign, and it ensures that their exercise of that right gets no local union subsidy. The exception for “incidental” campaigning on local union time recognizes that as officers and employees perform their duties and interact with members, election discourse may be part of the normal personal discourse that takes place. See George, P-490-LU391-SEC (April 4, 1996) (discussing exception for “incidental” campaigning on work time). Thus, the “incidental” exception does not protect campaigning by local union officers and employees outside of such normal interaction. Outside of those bounds, local union officers and employees are exercising a personal right that the local union cannot subsidize.
Louise Sullivan
April 17, 1996
Page 1
In determining those bounds, the Election Officer has applied the “incidental” exception to campaign-related conversations that local union officers and employees have with members while transacting legitimate union business, Raymond, P-434-LU572-CLA et seq. (March 14, 1996); Newhouse, P-253-LU435-RMT (January 4, 1996), as well as to brief, campaign-related parts of conversations that were otherwise about legitimate union business. Jackson, P-842-LU612-SEC (August 14, 1991); Draeger, P-486-LU823-MOI (February 20, 1991). Brief campaigning before or after legitimate union business may also fall within the bounds of normal personal interaction. Dillon, P-467-LU284-CLE (March 4, 1991). The Election Officer has also recognized that the “incidental” exception permits a local union officer or employee to take a few minutes to engage in campaign-related activity at a work site if he or she is otherwise there on legitimate union business. Walker, P-634-LU100-SCE (March 12, 1991).
Here, a union business agent visited a work site for union business and answered some union-business questions from members. During the visit she identified herself as a candidate in response to questions from members about the delegate election. She did not hold a campaign meeting at the work site. Her comments amount to incidental campaigning in the overall context of her visit.
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
Dennis M. Sarsany, Adjunct Regional Coordinator