November 7, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Mauricio Terrazas
November 7, 1996
Page 1
Mauricio Terrazas
3800 Bradford Street #233
La Verne, CA 91750
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Jackie Houser, General Manager
Safeway Distribution Center
4600 Stapleton Drive
Denver, CO 80216
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Mauricio Terrazas
November 7, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1097-LU936-RMT
Gentlemen:
Mauricio Terrazas, a member of Local Union 936, 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 the Safeway Distribution Center (“Safeway”) in Denver, Colorado and its general manager, Jackie Houser. The protester alleges that he was admitted onto the premises by a security guard at Safeway and spent two hours campaigning in the dispatch room. He contends that he then went to the employee parking lot and “proceeded to paper 300 cars and hung signs around the 2 blk. long parking lot.” At this point, he states that a security guard told him to leave the premises immediately. Mr. Terrazas contends that Safeway violated the Rules by ordering him off the property and allowing two people, who he terms as “Hoffa supporters,” but fails to identify, pull the material off the cars and tear down the signs.
Regional Coordinator Jonathan Wilderman investigated this protest.
Mauricio Terrazas
November 7, 1996
Page 1
Despite several attempts to contact the protester by telephone and letter, the protester failed to provide any information supporting his protest. Moreover, on its face, the protest does not state a violation of the Rules. In a previous protest involving Mr. Terrazas, the Election Officer made clear that parking lot access does not include a right to place campaign literature on vehicles:
Article VIII, Section 11(e) of the Rules creates a limited right-of-access to IBT members and candidates to distribute literature and 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.
In Maxwell, P-731-LU24-CLE (April 25, 1996), the Election Officer found that this right-of-access did not extend to “papering” cars:
The purpose of this section is to ensure that candidates and members have an effective method of communicating with other members about the International union delegate and officer election. This purpose is satisfied by the face-to-face opportunities for campaigning and handbilling that the parking lot rule affords. The limited right created and protected by this section does not extend to placing campaign material on vehicle windshields.
As the Election Officer stated in Howe, P-1083-LU238-MOI (November 4, 1991), “the prohibition on placing campaign literature under the windshield wipers of parked cars is not violative of the Election Rules given the other means of communication available to campaigners.”
Mauricio Terrazas
November 7, 1996
Page 1
The limited parking lot access right under the Rules similarly does not apply to posting campaign signs on employer property. In fact, such action by Mr. Terrazas would be considered vandalism to employer property, under the Rules. See Hoffa, P-992-LU707-NYC (October 7, 1996); Knox, P-1046-LU337-MOI et seq. (October 30, 1996); Sweeney, P-1058-LU807-NYC (October 28, 1996). While the Rules protect the ability of members to support candidates of their own choosing, that protection does not extend to affixing campaign stickers and other material to property that belongs to an employer.[1] As the Election Officer stated in Phelan, P-711-LU550-NYC (April 23, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 184 (KC) (May 6, 1996), “[t]he Rules protect campaigning as a personal right of IBT members and require that it be exercised that way.”
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
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
Jonathan Wilderman, Regional Coordinator
[1]Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules states, “All Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to . . . support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.”