Protest Decisions

              September 26, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Ken Mee

September 26, 1996

Page 1

Ken Mee

42356 Greenbrier Park Drive

Fremont, CA 94538

United Parcel Service

2985 Kerner Boulevard

San Rafael, CA 94901

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098

Chuck Mack, President

Teamsters Joint Council 7

150 Executive Park Boulevard

Suite 2900

San Francisco, CA 94134

Bob Carr, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 624

1371 Neotomas Avenue

Santa Rosa, CA 95405

Nathaniel Charny

Cohen, Weiss & Simon

330 W. 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036

Martin Wald

Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis

1600 Market Street

Suite 3600

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Ken Mee

September 26, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-946-LU624-CSF

Gentlemen:

Ken Mee, a candidate for reelection as Western Region vice president, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that on August 29, 1996, Bob Carr, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 624, and Matt Russell, business agent, escorted Chuck Mack, a member of the Hoffa slate to a campaign event at a UPS facility on union time and using union resources.  Mr. Mee further alleges that no other candidates were given the same opportunity to be escorted by Local Union 624 officers.  In addition, Mr. Mee protests that Hoffa -- No Dues Increase slate candidates are being given preferential treatment by the employer, UPS.

Ken Mee

September 26, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Carr and Mr. Russell respond that they used Mr. Carr’s personal vehicle and that they both took a sick day from work.  UPS responds that it allowed access to its plant to all candidates who requested it, in order to campaign.

Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross investigated this protest.

The Election Officer’s investigation revealed that on August 29, 1996, Mr. Mack drove to Santa Rosa to campaign with Mr. Carr and Mr. Russell.  They visited the UPS facility at San Rafael where they campaigned by talking to union members and handing out leaflets outside the facility and later entered the facility where they were allowed to campaign by the employer.  Steve MacDonald and George Saavedra, Local Union 439 members campaigning for the Carey campaign, were campaigning outside the building and entered it after they saw that Mr. Mack had been allowed to campaign inside.  Mr. MacDonald admits that they were allowed to campaign on the same basis as Mr. Mack.  The employer’s attorney confirmed that UPS allowed both groups to campaign inside the facility.

Mr. Carr and Mr. Russell were questioned by the Regional Coordinator regarding whether they were on working hours and both responded that they were on sick leave.  In addition, Mr. Carr stated that they used his personal car to campaign, a Ford Thunderbird, and not his union vehicle, a Ford Taurus.  None of the witnesses questioned remembered the model of the car Mr. Carr was driving and Mr. Mee did not produce any corroborating evidence of his allegation regarding the use of a union vehicle.

1.  Allegation of Improper Use of Union Resources and Time

Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules states that “[n]o candidate or member may campaign during his/her working hours . . . [C]ampaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not violative of this section.” 

Mr. Mee states in his protest that he has “reason to believe that the officers of Local 624 were on Union time,” but he did not provide the Regional Coordinator with any evidence to support his statement.  Both Mr. Carr and Mr. Russell assert that they took sick leave on that date.   They provided copies of their paychecks indicating they took sick leave on that date.  The Election Officer finds that Mr. Carr and Mr. Russell did not engage in campaigning on union time.

Mr. Carr states that he used his personal car in order to campaign.  None of the witnesses recalled exactly what kind of car it was.  Mr. Mee did not furnish any evidence which contra-dicted Mr. Carr’s testimony that he used his own car.  Thus, the Election Officer finds that

Mr. Carr did not utilize the union’s resources in order to engage in campaigning in violation of the Rules.[1]

Ken Mee

September 26, 1996

Page 1

2.  Allegation of Preferential Treatment to the Hoffa slate by Employers

Article VIII, Section 11(d)(1) of the Rules states, in relevant part:

No 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 employer or Union premises. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a nondiscriminatory basis.

The Election Officer has previously stated that “[i]f an employer chooses to allow campaigning on their premises, it may do so as long as equal access is provided to all candidates pursuant to Article VIII, Section 11(d).”  Rud, P-766-LU320-NCE (May 23, 1996), citing Burrows, P-118-LU70-CLA (September 13, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 16 (KC)

(September 30, 1995).

The employer has admitted that it allowed both parties to campaign on the premises after they requested access.  Mr. Mee states that “neither myself or any other member of the

Ron Carey slate were given the same opportunity” as Mr. Mack.  However, Mr. Mee presented no evidence that he or any other member of the Carey slate attempted to campaign at the facility and was denied access.  Furthermore, Mr. Mee’s own witnesses, Messrs. MacDonald and Saavedra, engaged in pro-Carey campaigning at the same time and under the same circumstances as Mr. Mack.  Therefore, the Election Officer finds that UPS has permitted equal access as required by the Rules.

For the foregoing reasons, this 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

Ken Mee

September 26, 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

Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator