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

October 13, 1998




Daniel J. Dzilenski

October 13, 1998

Page 1


Daniel J. Dzilenski

15316 168 Drive, SE

Monroe, WA 98272


Judy Bompart, Supervisor

United Parcel Service

18001 Union Hill Road

Redmond, WA 98052

Gary M. Tocci, Esq.

Schnader, Harrison, Segal

& Lewis

1600 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Daniel J. Dzilenski

October 13, 1998

Page 1


Re: Election Officer Case No. PR-254-LU174-EOH




Daniel J. Dzilenski, a member of Local Union 174, 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 Judy Bompart,  a supervisor at the United Parcel Services (“UPS”) facility in Redmond, Washington.  The protester alleges that Ms. Bompart   prohibited him from wearing a campaign pin on his uniform, in violation of the Rules.


The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.


On August 26, 1998 the protester, a steward at the Redmond facility, was instructed by Ms. Bompart to remove a campaign pin from his uniform.  According to Mr. Dzilenski, she told him that UPS policy prohibits the wearing of campaign pins, t-shirts, and other campaign paraphernalia once an employee is “on the clock.”  Mr. Dzilenski removed the campaign pin and filed this protest.


Daniel J. Dzilenski

October 13, 1998

Page 1


During the investigation of the protest, Mr. Dzilenski informed the Election Office representative that Ms. Bompart approached him soon after he filed his protest and told him that the “whole building was changing its policy” and would now allow campaign pins and hats to be worn during working hours but that they must be removed prior to an employee meeting with any customers.  On October 8, 1998, counsel for UPS corroborated Mr. Dzilenski’s version of events, as well as the subsequent clarification of the campaign paraphernalia policy by UPS management at the Redmond facility.  With regard to this policy, UPS stated that the Election Officer’s decision in Krutchen, PR-205-LU705-NCE (September 8, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. 377 (KC) (September 24, 1998) aptly describes the company’s nationwide approach to the issue of employees wearing campaign paraphernalia during work hours.  In that decision, the Election Officer found that “UPS continues to observe its longstanding, strict dress and grooming code for UPS drivers and other employees who come in contact with the public . . . [and that] [t]his dress code includes a prohibition against wearing campaign paraphernalia, including union campaign buttons on UPS uniforms.”  Krutchen at p.3.  The Election Officer went on, however, to state that “[the fact] [t]hat UPS does not apply this policy to employees who do not interact with the public is consistent with the Rules.” (Emphasis added).  Krutchen at p.6. 


In conversations with the Election Office, counsel for UPS confirmed that the company allows all of its employees nationwide to wear campaign paraphernalia while at work, as long as they remove it when they interact with customers.  Furthermore, upon being made aware of a violation of the campaign paraphernalia policy at its Redmond facility, UPS required the supervisors at that facility to immediately cease from improperly prohibiting the wearing of campaign paraphernalia and to comply with its policy as described in PR-205.


Despite the resolution of the matter, Mr. Dzilenski declined the invitation to withdraw his protest and requested that the Election Officer find that UPS had violated the Rules.  In these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes that further processing of this protest is unwarranted.  The protester’s complaint, as contained in this protest, has been addressed.


Accordingly, the protest is RESOLVED.


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.






Michael G. Cherkasky

Election Officer


cc:       Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master