October 9, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Bill Lloyd
3237 N. Oketo
Chicago, IL 60634
Mike Tortorello, Personnel Manager
Walgreens Drugs Distribution Center
5300 St. Charles Road
Berkeley, IL 60163
Re: Election Office Case No. P-959-LU703-CHI
Gentlemen:
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 Walgreens Drugs Distribution Center (“Walgreens”) for the purpose of campaigning, in violation of the Rules.
Walgreens responds that it is concerned for the safety of campaigners in the parking lot, as trucks and automobiles drive through the lot continually. Furthermore, the employer is wary that troublesome situations might arise, such as campaigners blocking the door that IBT members use to exit from its facility to the parking lot.
Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos investigated this protest.
Mr. Lloyd states that on September 9, 1996, he and Local Union 738 member
Bill Lloyd
October 9, 1996
Page 1
Charles Lloyd were campaigning on behalf of the Ron Carey slate in Walgreens’ employee parking lot when Personnel Manager Mike Tortorello informed him that campaigning was not permitted in the parking lot or anywhere on the company’s property. Mr. Tortorello told Charles and Bill Lloyd that they could campaign from the sidewalk outside the parking lot. The protester asserts that they attempted unsuccessfully to distribute campaign literature from the sidewalk. The protester states that “The people leaving the property were in a hurry to go home and were already in their auto’s and could not stop to get our flyers.”
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 employer’s normal business activities. Employers may also verify the identity of members wishing to campaign: “An employer may require reasonable identification to assure that a person seeking access to an employee parking lot pursuant to this rule is a candidate or other union member entitled to such access.” See Terrazas, P-825-LU63-CLA (July 11, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 217 (KC) (July 22, 1996); Eby, P-575-LU560-MOI (March 11, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).
It is undisputed that the protester was denied access to the employer’s parking lot for the purpose of campaigning on September 9, 1996. Under the Rules, Mr. Lloyd must be provided with a meaningful opportunity to campaign. Mr. Tortorello’s suggestion that he campaign from the sidewalk adjacent to the employee parking lot is insufficient. Such a location, the Election Officer has held, “would prevent face-to-face contact and reduce campaign opportunities to brief encounters through the windows of vehicles.” Carlucci,
P-916-LU705-CHI (September 23, 1996). See also Saavedra, P-923-LU439-CSF
(September 26, 1996).
The Regional Coordinator discussed the denial of access with representatives of Walgreens. The employer has agreed to permit campaigning by IBT members directly outside the side door of the building which leads to the employee parking lot. Walgreens will require all campaigners entering the parking lot to present identification to the security guard.
Given the nature of the employer’s parking lot, the Election Officer finds that the access proposed by Walgreens and the requirement of identification are reasonable under the Rules. See Tol, P-968-LU406-NCE (October 2, 1996).
Accordingly, the protest is RESOLVED. In order to ensure that the right of access is protected, Walgreens should notify all supervisors and security personnel of this decision.
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:
Bill Lloyd
October 9, 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, 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
Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator