June 8, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Michael Reevas
June 8, 1998
Page 1
Michael Reevas
7417 West 174th Street
Tinley Park, IL 60477
Rick Rohe, Business Agent
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
Gerald Zero, Secy. - Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
Barbara J. Leukart, Esq.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
North Point
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44144
Roadway Express
3434 West 51st Street
Chicago, IL 60632
Michael Reevas
June 8, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-102-LU705-NCE
Gentlemen:
Michael Reevas, a member of Local Union 705, 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 Richard Rohe, a business agent for Local Union 705. The protester alleged that Mr. Rohe was placing restrictions and will be placing restrictions in the future on pre-existing rights to use bulletin boards in violation of Article VIII, Section 11(d) of the Rules. Mr. Rohe denied the allegations.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.
The employees at Roadway Express Terminal’s 51st Street terminal had a cork union bulletin board in the drivers’ room. The board was open for all postings by employees, official union postings as well as political postings. After a series of incidents involving the defacing and removal of official union notices,[1] the union decided it needed a glassed-in bulletin board.
Michael Reevas
June 8, 1998
Page 1
Roadway agreed to install a glass-encased board in early May 1998. Their original plan was to replace the cork board with the glass-encased board and move the cork board to another location. The protester heard that Roadway planned to move the cork bulletin board and complained to Roadway Operations Manager Glenn Kaminski. The protester argued that because the cork board was on the union’s bulletin board list, it could not be moved. After a discussion with Mr. Rohe, Mr. Kaminski agreed to his suggestion that the cork board be left in its place and the glass-encased board be placed in another convenient, public location. The glass-encased board was placed in the corridor leading from the drivers’ room to the dock.
On May 8, 1998, Mr. Rohe held a meeting at Roadway to update the members on negotiations. After the meeting, Mr. Rohe asked the protester to stay and speak with him. The protester stated that Mr. Rohe spoke to several other members before him. According to the protester, when he became impatient and began to leave, Mr. Rohe yelled at him, “Over here; get over here!” The protester said he responded, “You said you wanted to talk to me, so talk to me,” and Mr. Rohe answered, “We can do this outside.” When the protester refused to go outside, a loud discussion ensued regarding the protester’s discussions with management over the bulletin board in the drivers’ room. The protester stated that, at that point, another member cut in with a question to which Mr. Rohe responded, and the protester began to leave. The protester contends that Mr. Rohe again yelled, “Get over here,” to which the protester responded that he would not tolerate Mr. Rohe speaking to him in that manner and that he was going to contact the Election Officer for clarification on the bulletin board issue.
The protester and Mr. Rohe agree on the substance of the discussion. Mr. Rohe told the protester that he should not have gone directly to management about the dispute over the bulletin board, saying that he should not air the union’s dirty laundry to management. Mr. Rohe strenuously denies both yelling “Get over here!” at the protester and making any suggestion to meet the protester outside.
Aritcle VIII, Section 11(d) of the Rules states that “[n]o restriction shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to use employer or Union bulletin boards for campaign publicity.” Here, no rights to the union bulletin board have been restricted because the cork bulletin board remains in its original location open to any and all campaign publicity. If the cork bulletin board is actually moved at some time in the future, the protester or any other member who believes the move was a restriction on members’ right to use the board for campaign publicity can raise and test such allegations in a timely protest. Hoffa, P-996-LU436-CLE (September 23, 1996). See also Pacheco, P-578-LU222-RMT (March 18, 1996) (risk of future improper use of membership information by local union officers does not violate rules; specific actions may be raised and tested by protest when they occur); Hill, P-409-LU89-SCE (March 13, 1996) (potential for future campaigning at union meetings does not state violation; protest may be filed if improper campaigning occurs).
Michael Reevas
June 8, 1998
Page 1
The Rules also prohibit retaliation or the threat of retaliation by any member of the IBT against any other IBT member for the exercise of any right guaranteed under the Rules. Rules, Article VIII, Section 11(f). Even assuming the protester’s account of the events on May 8, 1998, is accurate, none of the statements made by Mr. Rohe rise to the level of threats of retaliation for the exercise of rights connected with the rerun election. The conversation pertained solely to the protester’s actions toward management and contained no reference to the election.
Accordingly, this protest is hereby DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
MGC:chh
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Judith E. Kuhn, Election Officer Representative
[1] These incidents were the subject of Casteel, PR-085-LU705-NCE (date), in which the Election Officer found the removal of documents to be a violation of the Rules.