September 26, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Ken Mee
September 26, 1996
Page 1
Ken Mee
42356 Greenbrier Park Drive
Fremont, CA 94538
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
John Souza, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 386
1225 13th Street
Modesto, CA 95354
Larry Gould
Market Wholesale
536 Mariposa Road
Modesto, CA 95354
Mark Silvas
Foster Farms Dairy
415 Kansas Avenue
Modesto, CA 95351
Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Ken Mee
September 26, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-933-LU386-CSF
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 Ken Mee, a member of Local Union 287 and a candidate for reelection to the position of International vice president. Mr. Mee alleges that he was prevented from campaigning at a United Grocers work site and a Foster Farms Dairy work site, both in Modesto, California, in violation of the Rules. Mr. Mee also alleges that the officers of Local Union 386 and individuals representing the slate of James Hoffa, a member of Local Union 614 and a candidate for general president, have engaged in “a systematic routine of violating the election rules” by colluding with employers to grant work-site access to Hoffa supporters while denying access to Carey supporters.
Ken Mee
September 26, 1996
Page 1
Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross investigated the protest.
The investigation revealed that, on September 4, 1996, Mr. Mee traveled to both work sites. As is his custom, he arrived at each work site towing a trailer that carries a 20-foot long, 10-foot high billboard displaying pro-Carey images and slogans. According to
Mr. Mee, when he first arrives at a work site, he attempts to get inside the employer’s facility to distribute literature and talk to members. If he is not allowed inside the facility, he returns to his trailer and campaigns in the employee parking lot. Mr. Mee states that he was denied access to the United Grocers work site by Larry Gould, a representative of the employer. He also states that he was denied access to the Foster Farms work site by Mark Silvas, a repre-sentative of the employer, who told Mr. Mee and his associates to leave the premises and obtain permission to campaign at the work site from Local Union 386.
1. Access to United Grocers
Mr. Gould admits that he denied Mr. Mee access to the employee parking lot to campaign. After communicating with the Election Officer’s Regional Coordinator, Mr. Gould has issued a letter which states his intention to comply with the Rules and allow access to the employee parking lots during work hours for the purpose of campaigning.
2. Access to Foster Farms
A representative of Foster Farms admits that Mr. Mee was asked to leave the work site after Mr. Mee arrived towing his trailer and began to place leaflets on employee vehicles.
Mr. Silvas states that he told Mr. Mee that, in order to campaign on the lot, he would have to make an appointment or get permission from Local Union 386. After communicating with the Election Officer’s Regional Coordinator, Foster Farms issued a letter in which it stated its intention to fully comply with the access rights granted in the Rules. The employer states it will allow Mr. Mee and his associates access to the employee parking area at shift changes. The employer stated, however, that Mr. Mee may not bring his trailer onto the employer’s premises. The employer also stated that it would appreciate advance notification prior to
Mr. Mee’s visit as a courtesy.
The Election Officer is satisfied with the employer’s expression of intent to comply with the limited right-of-access granted in the Rules. The restrictions imposed in the letter are in line with prior decisions of the Election Officer. Mr. Mee is reminded that the Election Officer has previously ruled that an employer need not allow him to bring his trailer onto employer premises. The Election Officer stated in Mee, P-835-IBT-CLA:
Ken Mee
September 26, 1996
Page 1
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. This right, however, does not extend to the right of access to trailers, tents or any other vehicles for campaigning. See Young, P-266-IBT-SCE (January 4, 1996).
In line with this policy, the Election Officer accepted the access restrictions imposed by the employer in Mee, supra. These restrictions included access only during shift changes, refusal to grant access to trailers, billboards, or loudspeakers, and a requirement that individuals intending to campaign on the premises provide prior notice to the employer.
The restriction concerning campaigning only during shift changes was acceptable to the Election Officer because, as she stated in Terrazas, P-914-LU63-CLA (September 11, 1996), “[T]he right-of-access to the parking lot is limited to face-to-face campaigning and leafleting and does not include the right to [place political literature on or in parked vehicles].”
Foster Farms states that shift changes at its Modesto facility occur at approximately 6:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m., 2:30 p.m., 8:30 p.m., and 11:00 p.m.
3. Collusion Between Employers and Local Union 386
Mr. Mee contends that officers of Local Union 386 and the Hoffa slate have conspired to deny him and other Carey supporters access to work sites to campaign. He contends that such a conspiracy amounts to a pattern and practice of discriminatory conduct. Mr. Mee admits, however, that he has no evidence that anyone connected with the local union or the Hoffa slate told either employer to deny Mr. Mee access to their parking areas or otherwise colluded with company officials.
Article XIV, Section 1 of the Rules places the burden on the complainants “to present evidence that a violation has occurred.” Further, the Election Appeals Master has stated that the protester bears the initial burden of proof to offer evidence substantiating his allegations. In Re: Chentnik, 95 - Elec. App. - 52 (KC) (January 10, 1996).
Accordingly, the protesters allegations concerning access to United Grocers and Foster Farms are RESOLVED and the allegation of collusion between the local union, the Hoffa slate, and the employers 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:
Ken Mee
September 26, 1996
Page 1
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, D.C. 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
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator