October 25, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
George Figueroa
13506 Rangoon Street
Arleta, CA 91331
Price Pfister Brass Manufacturing
13500 Paxton Street
Pacoima, CA 91331
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1035-LU952-CLA
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest has been filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by George Figueroa, a member of Local Union 952, against Price Pfister Brass Manufacturing (“Price Pfister”). The protester alleges that Price Pfister denied him access to its employee parking lot for the purpose of campaigning, in violation of the Rules.
Price Pfister admits that it prohibited Mr. Figueroa from campaigning on its premises but states that it was unaware of the right of access set forth in the Rules. The company expressed concern that granting access to the protester might give rise to individuals entering the property for purposes other than campaigning.
Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee investigated this protest.
George Figueroa
October 25, 1996
Page 1
On September 25, 1996, at approximately 2:15 p.m., Mr. Figueroa and IBT member Felix Hernandez were distributing campaign literature for Ron Carey, a candidate for general president, in the parking lot at the Price Pfister facility. A security guard told the campaigners that they had to leave the premises. When Mr. Figueroa and Mr. Hernandez tried to explain to the security guard that they had a right to campaign in the parking lot, the security guard asked for a management representative to speak with them. Brenda Mares, the company’s benefits coordinator, came into the parking lot and ordered Mr. Figueroa and Mr. Hernandez to leave. According to the protester, when he and Mr. Hernandez attempted to explain their right-of-access, under the Rules, Ms. Mares “became increasingly hostile and insisted that we leave the premises immediately.”
At that point, Mr. Figueroa and Mr. Hernandez proceeded to the street entrance to the property with the intent of distributing their leaflets on the adjoining sidewalk. Ms. Mares followed the campaigners to this location, insisting that they leave as they were going to “cause a commotion” which would lead to unsafe conditions. Mr. Figueroa states that he and Mr. Hernandez again tried to explain their right-of-access to the parking lot to Ms. Mares but to no avail. According to the protester, he and Mr. Hernandez attempted to leaflet on the sidewalk, “but were unable to complete our assignment due to the rush of cars turning into the lot.”
The company’s vice president of Human Resources, Sam Wheeler, admits that Price Pfister denied the protester access to its parking lot on September 25, 1996, but states that the company was unaware of the limited right-of-access provided in the Rules. Mr. Wheeler further states that Price Pfister is at the center of a controversy relating to a potential move to Mexico and that persons opposed to the move are currently demonstrating outside the company’s facility. In light of this situation, Mr. Wheeler expressed concern that individuals would enter Price Pfister’s premises for purposes other than campaigning if the company granted access to its parking lot to Mr. Figueroa or other campaigners.
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.
Furthermore, employers may verify the identify of members wishing to campaign. Thus, Section 11(e) states that 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 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. - 131 (KC) (March 19, 1996).
Article VIII, Section 11(e) sets forth a means of rebutting the presumption of access, as follows:
George Figueroa
October 25, 1996
Page 1
Such presumption may be rebutted, however, by demonstrating to the Election Officer that access to Union members in an employer parking lot is neither necessary to nor appropriate to meaningful exercise of democratic rights in the course of the 1995-1996 election. An employer seeking to deny access to Union members in an employee parking lot may seek relief from the Election Officer at any time.
As discussed above, Price Pfister expressed concern about allowing IBT members to campaign in its parking lot due to the fact that protesters currently demonstrating outside the company’s property might take advantage of this access. However, the Election Officer points out that Price Pfister could control this situation by requiring IBT members to present “reasonable identification” if they wish to campaign, as provided in the Rules. Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that Price Pfister’s security concerns do not outweigh the right of the protester and other IBT members to campaign in the company’s parking lot. See Carlucci,
P-916-LU705-CHI (September 23, 1996); Saavedra, P-923-LU439-CSF (September 26, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App.- 250 (KC) (October 10, 1996). Moreover, Price Pfister has not provided any evidence that access to its parking lot is neither necessary nor appropriate.
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is GRANTED.
When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIV, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
The Election Officer orders Price Pfister to permit campaigning in the parking lot where IBT members park their personal vehicles, in conformity with Article VIII,
Section 11(e) of the Rules, subject only to the limitations set forth in that section.
Within two (2) days of the date of this decision, Price Pfister shall submit an affidavit to the Election Officer in which it acknowledges its compliance with 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
George Figueroa
October 25, 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
Dolly M. Gee, Regional Coordinator