Protest Decisions

              October 30, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Al Adams

October 30, 1996

Page 1

Al Adams

14968 Carol Drive

Maple Heights, OH  44137

Ron Carey Campaign

c/o Nathaniel K. Charny

Cohen, Weiss & Simon

330 W. 42nd Street

New York, NY  10036

Gary Proctor, President

Teamsters Local Union 124

2741 Trumbull Avenue

Detroit, MI  48216

Bradley T. Raymond

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,

  Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.

32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI  48334

Al Adams

October 30, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-1040-LU124-CLE

Gentlemen:

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by

Al Adams, a member of Local Union 407.  Mr. Adams alleges that Local Union 124 President Gary Proctor and unnamed local union officers, while attending grievance hearings with employers, campaigned in support of James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president.  The protester alleges that Mr. Proctor and others attended grievance hearings with employers, wearing pro-Hoffa shirts and verbally disparaging Ron Carey, IBT general president and a candidate for reelection.

Mr. Proctor denies having worn campaign material to grievance hearings or meetings with employers.  He also argues that Mr. Adams’ protest is untimely.

This protest was investigated Regional Coordinator Joyce Goldstein.

Al Adams

October 30, 1996

Page 1

1.              Timeliness

Mr. Proctor argues that Mr. Adams’ protest is based on a letter dated September 20, 1996 from Vincent T. Manzo, vice president of B.I.S. Inc. of Ohio (“B.I.S.”), to Mr. Carey. 

Mr. Proctor argues that the protest was filed on September 26, 1996 and is, therefore, untimely.

In response, Mr. Adams states that while Mr. Manzo’s letter is dated September 20, he did not learn of the letter until September 26, the day his protest was filed.  Therefore, he argues that the protest is timely.  The Election Officer finds that Mr. Adams filed his protest in conformity with the timeliness requirement of the Rules.

2.              Allegations Concerning Campaigning

In support of his protest, Mr. Adams submitted a letter from Mr. Manzo.  B.I.S. is an IBT employer.  Mr. Manzo states in his letter to Mr. Carey that representatives of Local Union 124 have campaigned against Mr. Carey during grievance meetings with employers, wearing campaign shirts and referring to Mr. Carey in a disparaging manner.

Mr. Manzo refused to be interviewed during the investigation, but was present when Charles Garavaglia, president of B.I.S., was interviewed.  Mr. Garavaglia states that he was present at an early-September grievance meeting and observed Local Union 124 representatives campaign repeatedly against Mr. Carey and in favor of Mr. Hoffa.

Mr. Garavaglia also provided information concerning some animosity between Local Union 124 and B.I.S.  B.I.S. was the personnel leasing company for four businesses that had collective bargaining agreements with Local Union 124.  Local Union 124 no longer represents two of these employers.  Moreover, Local Union 124’s collective bargaining relationship with United Ambulance is the subject of a dispute and has resulted in considerable animus between United Ambulance, B.I.S. and Local Union 124.  The fourth collective bargaining relationship with C.J. Rogers is also contentious.  An unfair labor practice charge has been filed by Local Union 124 against B.I.S.

Mr. Proctor states that the last meeting with B.I.S. occurred on September 5, 1996.   He denies mentioning Mr. Carey or Mr. Hoffa and states that no campaign paraphernalia was worn at the meeting.  He states that he wore a plain sweater and a Joint Council 43 jacket.  He acknolwedges that Local Union 124 and B.I.S. have been in dispute as to United Ambulance’s employees.  He also substantiates that Local Union 124 has filed unfair labor practice charges against B.I.S.  Mr. Proctor states that the timing of these charges may shed light on

Mr. Manzo’s letter.

The Rules, at Article VIII, Sections 11(a) and (b), provide that all union members, including union members who are union officers, have the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right “to openly support or oppose any candidate [and] to aid or campaign for any candidate.”

Al Adams

October 30, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer issued the Advisory on Wearing of Campaign Buttons and Other Emblems (“Advisory ”) on September 20, 1995.  The Advisory states that the Rules protect the right of IBT members, including union officers and employees, “to wear campaign emblems on buttons, t-shirts or hats while working.”  (Citations omitted.)  In regard to union officers, the Advisory specifies as follows:

[T]hey may not wear such [campaign] emblems when representing the Union before or with an unrelated third party.  Thus, Union officers, business agents and employees may not wear campaign emblems when meeting with an employer of IBT members for collective bargaining or grievance resolution, when participating either as an advocate, witness or panel member in grievance hearings . . . when making public appearances on behalf of the Union, or when engaged in similar type activities where the wearing of a campaign emblem might inappropriately suggest that the Union with which the officer . . . is affiliated, is an entity supporting or opposing any particular candidate or group of candidates.

The Election Officer held in Green, P-320-LU20-SEC (February 7, 1996), that a union official who attends a grievance committee meeting as a representative of his local union, joint council or conference may not wear a campaign button at the meeting.  The Election Officer concluded that by wearing a campaign button, this official “might inappropriately suggest” to the employers present at the meeting that the entities he represented support a particular candidate.

Here, Mr. Adams relies solely on allegations made by Mr. Manzo in his letter as evidence that a Rules violation occurred.  Mr. Manzo would not speak to the Election Officer’s representative, however, and he relied on Mr. Garavaglia to speak on his behalf.  Mr. Garavaglia expressed anger with the circumstances surrounding the United Ambulance dispute and Mr. Proctor’s role in that dispute.[1]  The investigation found that Mr. Garavaglia was not credible.  The allegations by B.I.S. seem timed directly to the actions the local union against this employer.  Mr. Proctor’s denials and specific recollections of the meeting are credited by the Election Officer.  The Election Officer finds that there is no credible evidence that representatives of Local Union 124 engaged in the conduct alleged.

In consideration of the foregoing, this protest is DENIED.

Al Adams

October 30, 1996

Page 1

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

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

Joyce Goldstein, Regional Coordinator