Protest Decisions

              October 23, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Robert Kronhert

October 23, 1996

Page 1

Robert Kronhert

41 Hawthorne Street

Rutherford, NJ  07070

Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

200 U.S. Highway 1

Newark, NJ  07101

David Laughton, Trustee

Teamsters Local Union 843

446 Morris Avenue

Springfield, NJ  07081

Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

1 Busch Place

St. Louis, MO  63118

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI  48098

Ron Carey Campaign

c/o Nathaniel K. Charny

Cohen, Weiss & Simon

330 W. 42nd Street

New York, NY  10036

Bradley T. Raymond

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond

  Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.

32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI  48334

Robert Kronhert

October 23, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-1077-LU843-PNJ

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

Robert Kronhert

October 23, 1996

Page 1

Robert Kronhert, a member of Local Union 843.  Mr. Kronhert alleges that Ron Carey, IBT general president and a candidate for reelection, campaigned on October 9, 1996, at an Anheuser-Busch (“employer”) work site without similar access provided to other candidates, in violation of the Rules.  The protester also alleges that the employer allowed the posting of pro-Carey stickers in and on company property, including on its fleet of fork lifts.  Further, the protester alleges that union funds were used to pay for a member to leave work and introduce Mr. Carey at the campaign event.  Finally, Mr. Kronhert alleges that event workers at a DRIVE voter registration event held at the facility in September campaigned for

Mr. Carey’s candidacy, in violation of the Rules.[1]

The employer admits that Mr. Carey was allowed to campaign in a work site cafeteria for about two hours.  The employer also states that it maintains a policy whereby campaign material may not be posted in the plant.  According to the employer, material supporting both Messrs. Carey and Hoffa has been removed from employer facilities as soon as it is discovered.

Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr. investigated the protest.

1.              Allegations Concerning the DRIVE Voter Registration Event

The protester alleges that an IBT-funded DRIVE function, held at the employer’s facility on September 4, 1996 was used by event organizers to campaign for Mr. Carey, in violation of the Rules.  Mr. Kronhert filed the protest containing this allegation on

October 10, 1996.

Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules requires protesters to file “within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested.”  The short time limits are important to ensuring that alleged violations of the Rules are quickly brought to the attention of the Election Officer in order to afford the greatest opportunity for applying an effective remedy if a violation is found.

Twenty-six business days elapsed between the protested event and the current protest.  The Election Officer, therefore, determines this allegation to be untimely.

2.              Allegations Concerning the October 9, 1996 Visit by Mr. Carey to Employer Facility

The employer admits that it permitted Mr. Carey access to its facility.  The employer states that it will grant Mr. Hoffa or his designee access to its facility and has notified the Hoffa campaign of this offer.

3.              Allegations Concerning Use of Union Resources to Campaign

The investigation revealed that Local Union 843 Chief Warehouse Steward Mike Salito was on local union time when he accompanied Mr. Carey as the latter campaigned at the employer’s facility on October 9, 1996.

Robert Kronhert

October 23, 1996

Page 1

The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(c), strictly prohibit the use of union resources in campaigning.  The Rules otherwise permit campaigning by any member of the IBT if there is no utilization of union resources and the member is not campaigning during his or her work hours. 

In this case, the Election Officer determines that the payment of Mr. Salito for the time he spent accompanying Mr. Carey during a campaign event is an impermissible use of union resources, in violation of the Rules.

4.              Allegations Concerning the Posting of Campaign Material on Employer Premises

The protester contends that the employer discriminates against candidates by intentionally allowing the posting of pro-Carey material while not allowing the posting of material supporting any other candidate.  The employer responds that posting such material is a violation of company policy and that when material supporting any candidate is discovered it is immediately removed.

The protester has offered no evidence, besides his own assertion, that the employer has failed to evenly apply its prohibition on campaign posting.  While the Election Officer accepts the protester’s contention that such material has been posted, she also credits the employer’s statement that, when such material is discovered by employer representatives, it is promptly removed.

Accordingly, the protest, as it relates to Mr. Salito and the use of union resources, is GRANTED and, as it relates to Mr. Carey’s visit to the employer facility, is RESOLVED.  The protest, as it relates to the posting of campaign material and the DRIVE event, is DENIED.

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 investigation revealed that Mr. Salito was compensated by the local union for the two hours he assisted with Mr. Carey’s campaigning activities at the employer’s facility. 

Mr. Salito was paid $52.70 for this time.  As a result, the Election Officer directs the following:

1.  Within two (2) days of the date of this decision, the Carey campaign will reimburse Local Union 843 $52.70.

2.  Within one (1) day of this payment, the Carey campaign will submit an affidavit to the Election Officer indicating its compliance with this order.

Robert Kronhert

October 23, 1996

Page 1

An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules.  In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).

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, D.C. 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