November 15, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Diane Hendricks & Dennis Huss
November 15, 1996
Page 1
Diane Hendricks
21 Elm Tree Court
Taylorville, IL 62568
Dennis Huss
RR 1, Box 168
New Berlin, IL 62670
William Shrader, President
Teamsters Local Union 916
2701 N. Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, IL 62702
John Geyston
Teamsters Local Union 916
2701 N. Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, IL 62702
Illinois Dept. of Transportation
2300 S. Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, IL 62703
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel K. Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
James Hoffa Campaign
c/o Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Diane Hendricks & Dennis Huss
November 15, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-1209-LU916-NCE
P-1210-LU916-NCE
Gentlepersons:
Related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of The Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Diane Hendricks and Dennis Huss, members of Local Union 916. The protesters each allege that Local Union 916 Business Agent John Geyston used employer resources to campaign on behalf of James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president. Specifically, the protesters allege that on November 8, 1996, the Illinois Department of Transportation (“IDOT”) permitted
Mr. Geyston and several unidentified Hoffa supporters to distribute Hoffa campaign material in the lobby of IDOT’s Springfield, Illinois facility.
Diane Hendricks & Dennis Huss
November 15, 1996
Page 1
In response, Mr. Geyston and IDOT Labor Relations Manager Jack Small admit that the charged party and other Hoffa supporters used the facility’s lobby to set up a campaign table and distribute pro-Hoffa material, but on November 6, 1996, not November 8. They state that access to the employer’s property for campaign purposes was permissible because IDOT has enforced a policy permitting such access for all groups and that the facility is available for any candidate’s use.
These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn. The Election Officer consolidated these protests for decision because they involve the same employer facility and raise identical issues under the Rules.
The investigation shows that on November 8, 1996, Mr. Geyston and several persons from the Hoffa campaign headquarters in Chicago set up a table in the facility’s lobby and distributed Hoffa campaign material to IBT members between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Arrangements for setting up the table were made with Mr. Small. IDOT has a liberal access policy, according to Mr. Small, which permits outside organizations to set up tables in the lobby. The lobby is located near a cafeteria and employees/IBT members can be solicited during their lunch break.
According to Mr. Small, IDOT permits any group to use the lobby unless they become disruptive or violate the law. Groups also may not interfere with employees during their work time. In the past, community groups and charitable organizations, such as United Way, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the IBT have set up tables to solicit in IDOT’s lobby. Mr. Small states that IDOT has not discriminated against any candidates or slates in granting access.
Article VIII, Section 11(d) of the Rules states:
[N]o 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 . . . premises. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a nondiscriminatory basis.
One source of “preexisting rights” for purposes of this section is past practice. In Re: Hall, 90 - Elec. App. - 1 (October 4, 1990); Brinkman, P-151-LU305-PNW (September 18, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 21 (KC) (October 10, 1995). Where there is a pre-existing right, Article VIII, Section 11(d) of the Rules specifically protects it. Therefore, it may not be changed or cut back during the election process. Jesses, P-183-LU612-SEC (February 5, 1991) (“the employer cannot now change its practice” with respect to parking lot access); Camarata, P-709-LU299-MGN (April 10, 1991); Benson, P-431-LU104-RMT (undated). Furthermore, the Rules, as quoted above, specifically require that access rights be applied without discrimination.
Diane Hendricks & Dennis Huss
November 15, 1996
Page 1
Here, the protesters have presented no evidence that Mr. Geyston or any person at IDOT violated the Rules. Because of the employer’s liberal policy and its past practice enforcing that policy, Mr. Geyston had a pre-existing right to campaign in the IDOT lobby. Nor is there any evidence that IDOT provided favorable access to Mr. Hoffa’s supporters, since it permits such access to all candidates.
Accordingly, the protests are 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
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator