This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

              November 27, 1996





Robert Kirkpatrick

9352 Candlelight Street

Apple Valley, CA  92308


Bruce Blake

1101 West Road

La Habra Heights, CA  90631


Re:  Election Office Case No. P-1243-LU630-CLA




Robert Kirkpatrick, a member of Local Union 848 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) alleging that Local Union 848 member Bruce Blake, accompanied by Frank Halstead, Charles Wilson and Bill Lyons, violated the Rules on November 12, 1996, when they entered the property of Hughes Markets (Hughes) in Irwindale, California and conducted prohibited campaign activities on behalf of Ron Carey, incumbent general president and a candidate for reelection.  Mr. Kirkpatrick further alleges that Mr. Blake and his group misrepresented themselves as IBT officials in order to gain access to the facility, that they entered the facility and disrupted the work of Teamsters employed there, and that their behavior was abusive.


Mr. Blake denies that he misrepresented himself to gain access to the facility and further denies that he disrupted the work being conducted at the facility or behaved in an abusive manner.  Mr. Blake alleges that the objective of the group was to distribute campaign literature to employees arriving for the 9:00 a.m. shift, and that he accomplished this by stationing himself at the employee entrance to the warehouse facility and distributing flyers to the employees as they approached from the employee parking lot.

Robert Kirkpatrick

November 27, 1996

Page 1



This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee.


In the course of this investigation the following parties were interviewed:  Local

Union 848 member Bruce Blake; Local Union 70 member Robert Kirkpatrick; and Hughes Vice President of Human Relations and Industrial Relations David McMahon.


Mr. Kirkpatrick has no firsthand knowledge of this incident.  He alleges that the

events described by him in the protest were reported to him by a rank-and-file member.

Mr. Kirkpatrick refused to disclose the name of his source because he said the source felt threatened.


Mr. Kirkpatrick alleges that after gaining access to the facility by misrepresenting themselves as IBT officials, the group obtained visitors passes by falsely stating that they had an appointment with Hughes management.  Mr. Kirkpatrick further alleges that the group used the passes to enter the warehouse, where they campaigned for Mr. Carey and disrupted work until they were removed by police officers at approximately 9:00 a.m.


Regarding the incident at Hughes, Mr. McMahon stated that at approximately

8:30 a.m. on November 12, several individuals entered Hughes gates, stood outside the

door to the warehouse and distributed campaign literature.  The individuals never went into

the work area.  The police were called by management, and when they arrived at approximately 9:00 a.m., the campaigners left.  Mr. McMahon states that the campaigners were not disruptive, but that their activity at the door was unwelcome because it started to back things up at the vehicle entrance.


Neither Mr. Blake nor any member of his group is an employee of Hughes.  Except for the limited employee parking lot exception provided by Article VIII, Section 11(e) of the Rules, absent a pre-existing right, or the right to be on the employers premises for legitimate union business, non-employees do not have any right to campaign on an employers property under the Rules.  Mr. Blake admits he and his group distributed Carey campaign literature outside Hughes employee entrance.  Therefore, the Election Officer finds that they violated the Rules.


The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(d) read, in pertinent part:


[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 or Union premises.  Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a non-discriminatory basis.


Robert Kirkpatrick

November 27, 1996

Page 1



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), affd, 95 - Elec. App. - 21 (KC) (October 10, 1995).  The Election Officer finds no evidence here of a pre-existing right for a non-employee to campaign outside Hughes employee entrance.  Furthermore, the employers stated concern about the traffic problems caused by Mr. Blakes campaigning, and its immediate action to call the police to curtail the campaigning, provide clear evidence of the lack of a pre-existing right regarding such campaigning.


There is no evidence that the charged parties misrepresented themselves or ever entered the facility.


For the foregoing reasons, the protest is GRANTED as to prohibited campaigning by Messrs. Blake, Wilson, Lyons and Halstead and DENIED in all other respects.


Having found that the Rules have been violated, the Election Officer may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.  Article XIV, Section 4.  In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process. 


Messrs. Blake, Wilson, Lyons and Halstead are directed to immediately cease and desist from campaigning in any manner which violates the Rules.


An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the RulesIn 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


Robert Kirkpatrick

November 27, 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.






Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer


cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Dolly M. Gee, Regional Coordinator