October 1, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Raul Rodriguez, Jr.
October 1, 1998
Page 1
Raul Rodriguez, Jr.
13882 Stagecoach Circle
Victorville, CA 92392
Randy Cammack
Teamsters Local Union 63
845 Oak Park Road
Covina, CA 91724
Meline Hall
Teamsters Local Union 63
845 Oak Park Road
Covina, CA 91724
Richard Olmstead, H.R., Safety
& Workers Compensation Mgr.
Fiedman Bag Company, Inc.
801 E. Commercial Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Tom Leedham Campaign Office
P. O. Box 15877
Washington, D.C. 20003
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
Mauricio Terrazas
3800 Bradford Street, #223
La Verne, CA 91750
Maria Martinez
4114 W. Marie, No. A-10
Pasco, WA 99301
Raul Rodriguez, Jr.
October 1, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-236-LU63-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Raul Rodriguez, a member of Local Union 630, 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 Local Union 63; Randy Cammack, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 63; Meline Hall, a business agent of Local Union 63; and, Richard Olmstead, Safety and Workers Compensation Manager at Fiedman Bag Company, Inc. (“Fiedman”).
Raul Rodriguez, Jr.
October 1, 1998
Page 1
The protester alleges that on August 14, 1998, Mr. Olmstead, at the direction of Mr. Cammack and Ms. Hall, prevented him and other IBT members from gaining access to the Fiedman’s facility in Los Angeles, California, for the purpose of campaigning, in violation of the Rules. The protester also alleges that Mr. Cammack and Ms. Hall improperly directed Mr. Olmstead to prohibit Mauricio Terrazas, a member of Local Union 63, from gaining access to the employer’s facility.
Mr. Olmstead admits that he denied access to the protester and the other IBT members present with him, but states that the lack of a pre-existing right for non-employees to campaign inside of the Fiedman facility allowed him to deny any access except in the employee parking lot. Mr. Olmstead alleges that Mr. Terrazas had fraudulently represented himself as a business agent of Local Union 63 in the past. Mr. Olmstead denies that Mr. Cammack or Ms. Hall ever instructed him to prevent the access of Mr. Terrazas or other IBT members to the employer premises, but states that Ms. Hall had informed him that Mr. Terrazas was not an official representative of Local Union 63. He further alleges that on the day in question, while he was talking with the protester in front of the facility, other campaigners accompanying the protester illegally entered the back of the facility and campaigned inside without his permission. Mr. Olmstead states that non-employees are free to campaign in the employee parking lot.
Mr. Cammack and Ms. Hall deny interfering with the campaign rights of the protester. Ms. Hall also denies ever campaigning or posting campaign material inside the Fiedman facility.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.
On August 14, 1998, Mr. Rodriguez, accompanied by Maria Martinez, a member of Local Union 556 and a candidate for Western Region vice - president, Vera Cook, a member of Local Union 63, and Mr. Terrazas arrived at the Fiedman facility in Los Angeles, California to campaign. They initially attempted to enter the facility through the back loading dock entrance but were stopped by employees. The protester and Ms. Martinez then proceeded to the front of the facility to meet with Mr. Olmstead in order to gain access to the lunchroom.
Both parties presented differing versions of the meeting with Mr. Olmstead. The protester states that Mr. Olmstead told them that Ms. Hall had directed the employer to not allow Mr. Terrazas into the facility to campaign, but that Mr. Olmstead denied them access despite admitting that he had allowed Ms. Hall access in the past to campaign.
Raul Rodriguez, Jr.
October 1, 1998
Page 1
Mr. Olmstead states that he told Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Martinez that Fiedman’s current policy was to not allow any non-employees into the facility to campaign. Mr. Olmstead also said that Ms. Hall had previously informed him that Mr. Terrazas was not an official representative of Local Union 63 and only official representatives on union business could have access to the facility. When Mr. Rodriguez questioned whether Ms. Hall had been allowed into the facility in the past to post election campaign material, Mr. Olmstead admitted that Ms. Hall had been in the facility before but that “he didn’t know if she had posted campaign literature.” Mr. Olmstead later stated to the investigator that neither Ms. Hall nor any other non-employee had ever been allowed to campaign or post literature inside of the facility.[1] The protester presented no other evidence supporting his allegation that non-employees had a pre-existing right to campaign inside the facility.
Ms. Hall corroborated Mr. Olmstead’s account, stating that she had never campaigned or posted campaign literature of any kind inside the facility. She also stated that Mr. Olmstead had called her two weeks prior to this event and inquired if Mr. Terrazas was working for Local Union 63. She informed him that Mr. Terrazas did not represent the local union, but denied telling Mr. Olmstead that Mr. Terrazas or any other IBT member should be prohibited from entering the facility. At Mr. Olmstead’s request, Ms. Hall faxed him a copy of the Election Officer’s Advisory on Limited Rights of Access to Employer Premises.
Both parties agree that while the protester and Ms. Martinez were talking with Mr. Olmstead, unknown campaigners proceeded into the facility through the loading dock entrance and engaged employees in campaign-related conversations, without the permission of Mr. Olmstead or any other Fiedman management representatives.
While Article VIII, Section 11(e) of the Rules creates a limited right-of-access to IBT members and candidates to distribute literature and seek support for their campaign in any parking lot used by union members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment, that section specifically states that “[n]othing in this Subsection shall entitle any candidate or other Union member to access to any other part of premises owned, leased or operated or used by an employer . . . .”
The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(d) only permit campaigning by non-employees inside an employer’s facility if it is established that there is a pre-existing right to do so. Thus, that section states, in pertinent part: “[N]o restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature . . . on employer . . . premises.” If there is no pre-existing right, an employer is not required to grant access to non-employees for purposes of campaigning.
The Election Officer finds Mr. Olmstead’s account of the exchange with Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Martinez persuasive. Mr. Olmstead was advised by Fiedman’s labor attorney that non-employees had been consistently prohibited from campaigning within the facility in the past and he had been ordered to stop any non-employees from entering the facility. Immediately after prohibiting access, he affirmed that Ms. Hall had not campaigned inside of the facility in the past. Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that the evidence failed to establish a pre-existing right to campaign inside Fiedman’s Los Angeles, California facility.
Raul Rodriguez, Jr.
October 1, 1998
Page 1
Consequently, as Mr. Rodriguez and the other campaigners accompanying him were not employees of Fiedman, there is no violation of the Rules. With respect to the alleged interference of Mr. Cammack, Ms. Hall and Local Union 63 with the rights of Mr. Terrazas to campaign, the evidence failed to establish the existence of any directive against Mr. Terrazas.
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,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
[1] Mr. Olmstead told the Election Office investigator that Ms. Hall had posted Rerun Election and other official election-related notices on the bulletin boards in the facility.