This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

              October 2, 1996





Bill Lloyd

3237 N. Oketo

Chicago, IL  60634


Dan Crouse, Plant Manager

Select Beverage

401 N. Railroad Avenue

Northlake, IL  60164


Re:  Election Office Case No. P-958-LU703-CHI




Bill Lloyd, a member of Local Union 703, 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) alleging that he was denied access to the employee parking lot at Select Beverage for the purpose of campaigning, in violation of the Rules


Select Beverage states that it has a no-solicitation rule for its property which was applied to the protester.


Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos investigated this protest.


Bill Lloyd

October 2, 1996

Page 1



Mr. Lloyd states that on September 10, 1996, he and a member of Local Union 738 were distributing literature for the Ron Carey slate in an employee parking lot at Select Beverage when a security guard approached him and told him to speak with Dan Cruse, vice president of human resources.[1]  Mr. Cruse informed Mr. Lloyd that he and the other member were not permitted on company property and would have to distribute their material in the street.[2]  The protester asserts that we were not able to campaign for fear of being run over by cars and trucks.


Article VIII, Section 11(e) of the Rules creates a limited right-of-access to IBT members and candidates to distribute literature and seek support for their campaign in any parking lot used by union members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment.  While presumptively available, this right is not without limitations.  It is not available to any employee on working time and candidates and their supporters cannot solicit or campaign to employees who are on working time.  It is also restricted to campaigning that will not materially interfere with an employers normal business activities.  


It is undisputed that Mr. Lloyd was denied access to the employers parking lot when he attempted to campaign there.  The Regional Coordinator discussed the denial of access with Mr. Cruse who has now agreed that union members can distribute campaign literature just outside of both parking lots, at the opening in the fence through which all employees must walk in order to reach their cars.  The protester has returned to Select Beverage to campaign and is satisfied with the access allowed by the company.


Accordingly, the Election Officer is satisfied that Mr. Lloyds protest has been RESOLVED.


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


Bill Lloyd

October 2, 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.






Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer



cc:               Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator

[1]There are two employee parking lots at Select Beverage.  Mr. Lloyd was distributing campaign literature in the lot on the south side of the building. 

[2]There are no sidewalks adjacent to the property.