October 16, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James Smith
October 16, 1996
Page 1
James Smith
Teamsters Local Union 115
2833 Cottman Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19149
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond
Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
James Smith
October 16, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1027-LU401-PNJ
Gentlemen:
James Smith, a member of Local Union 115, 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 James P. Hoffa and Garland U.S. Range (“Garland”). Mr. Hoffa is a candidate for general president in the pending International officer election. Garland manufacturers commercial kitchen equipment and operates a plant in Freeland, Pennsylvania. Local Union 401 represents some of Garland’s employees.
Mr. Smith alleges that Mr. Hoffa improperly campaigned within the premises of Garland’s Freeland plant on September 24, 1996. He further asserts that Garland improperly contributed to Mr. Hoffa’s campaign by allowing him to campaign on the production floor.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr.
The facts are not disputed. The September 25, 1996 issue of the Hazleton Standard-Speaker contains a photograph of Mr. Hoffa. The caption under the photograph reads as follows:
James Smith
October 16, 1996
Page 1
HOFFA IN FREELAND - Teamsters union presidential hopeful Jimmy Hoffa recently made a campaign stop at the Garland plant in Freeland. Hoffa, second from left, is with, from left, Garland’s Senior Vice President Dale Kostick, Chief Steward Andy Goryl and Director of Human Relations Ted Ladner.
The protester became aware of this photograph and caption on September 27, 1996, and filed the protest on the same day.
The investigation discloses that Mr. Hoffa did campaign at Garland’s Freeland plant on or about September 24, 1996. Through the efforts of Mr. Goryl, a prior arrangement was made with Garland under which Mr. Hoffa would campaign in the parking lot at break time, which regularly occurs between 9:00 a.m. and 9:18 a.m. Mr. Hoffa’s arrival was, however, delayed until after the break time had passed.
When Mr. Hoffa arrived at the plant, he obtained special permission from the company president to walk through the plant and campaign, provided production was not interrupted.
Mr. Hoffa was escorted through the facility by Mr. Kostick, Mr. Goryl and Mr. Ladner. The visit continued for approximately 45 minutes. Mr. Hoffa carried some leaflets and buttons with him and passed them out during the tour.
Garland has stated its willingness to allow Mr. Carey or his designated representative to tour its production facility under the same terms and conditions which applied to Mr. Hoffa.
The Election Officer recently held that “[T]he Rules provide for only two forms of access for non-employees to employer premises: (1) under the “parking lot rule,” which creates a limited right for non-employees to campaign in parking lots where members park their cars;[1] and (2) to other parts of employer premises if non-employees have had past access under a “preexisting” right or practice.[2] Gasman, P-966-LU283-MGN (October 14, 1996);
James Smith
October 16, 1996
Page 1
Thomas, P-922-LU347-CHI (September 30, 1996); Hoffa, P-957-IBT-MGN (October 2, 1996), appeal pending.”[3]
In addition to the parking lot access which Garland is obligated to provide under the Rules, Garland allowed Mr. Hoffa to arrive at a pre-announced and pre-arranged time, consistent with the regular employee break, on the condition that production not be interrupted. Garland has offered Mr. Carey or his designee the same opportunity. The protester does not allege the existence of a pre-existing right at Garland which permits campaigning by non-employees within employer premises. Further, the protester is satisfied by Garland’s offer to permit Mr. Carey or his designee to tour the premises on the same terms as Mr. Hoffa--a pre-announced visit continuing for no longer than 45 minutes, so long as production is not interrupted.
Accordingly, this protest is RESOLVED.
Within five (5) days of this decision, Mr. Carey or his designee should contact
Ted Ladner, director of Labor Relations at Garland, to arranged for the visit which has been agreed to in 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:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
James Smith
October 16, 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
Peter V. Marks, Sr., Regional Coordinator
[1]Article VIII, Section 11(e)(iii) of the Rules states that “a candidate for International office and any Union member within the regional area(s) in which said candidate is seeking office may distribute literature and/or otherwise solicit support in connection with such candidacy in any parking lot used by Union members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment in said regional area(s).”
[2]Article VIII, Section 11(d) of the Rules states that “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.”
[3]The Election Officer’s decision in Hoffa, P-957-IBT-MGN (October 2, 1996) was affirmed by the Election Appeals Master in In Re: Hoffa, 96 - Elec. App. - 252 (KC)
(October 15, 1996).