Protest Decisions

            Robert Ream, member of Local Union 150, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2 of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that Young’s Market, an interested employer, made a prohibited contribution to Hoffa-Hall 2011 by permitting a campaign banner to be posted on a wall of the break room of its facility in Morgan Hill, California, and that Hoffa-Hall 2011 impermissibly accepted that employer contribution.

            Sandy Pope and the Gegare-Sheard slate filed separate protests making the same allegations.

            These protests were consolidated for investigation and decision.  Election Supervisor representative Michael Miller investigated them.

Findings of Fact

            Young’s Market is a distributor and retailer of fine wine and spirits headquartered in Tustin, California.  Its northern California distribution center, the site of this dispute, is located in Morgan Hill, California and employs some 120 members of Local Union 853.  Robert Ream, a protestor here, is a member of Local Union 150 in Sacramento and drives to and from the Morgan Hill center as part of his duties.  On October 4, he was informed that a large Hoffa-Hall banner was mounted on the wall of the employee break room at the Morgan Hill facility.  He filed a protest, which the campaigns competing against Hoffa-Hall quickly followed.

            Ream told our investigator that he has never been in the break room at Morgan Hill and never saw the banner himself.  Rather, he learned of its existence from a Young’s employee whom he declined to identify.  Accordingly, our search for first-hand knowledge of the incident and the practice that prevails at the facility was limited to interviews of the member who posted the banner, a company manager, and a local union official.  The evidence obtained from those persons showed the following.

            Ray Torres is chief union steward at the facility and a supporter of Hoffa-Hall 2011.  He stated that he obtained the banner, which measured approximately 4 feet square, was printed on corrugated cardboard, and read “Hoffa-Hall 2011,” at a campaign event in early September 2011.  Torres stated that the practice at Morgan Hill during a union campaign season is to permit campaign material to be posted on the bulletin board in the employee break room.  As the bulletin board is of limited size and often fills up with campaign literature of competing candidates, the practice permits supporters to post campaign material on the break room wall adjacent to the bulletin board, provided the employer consents.  Torres said he showed the Hoffa-Hall banner to Morgan Hill plant manager Lloyd Brendan and asked permission to post it on the break room wall next to the bulletin board.  Brendan granted the permission, and Torres posted it in mid-September, some three weeks before the protest was filed.

            Torres stated further that the practice of posting on the wall next to the bulletin board was long standing.  He stated that during the 2006 International officers election, banners for Hoffa and Leedham were posted on the wall.  In addition, he stated that the only employees who use the break room are those on break; no work is done in the break room nor is the room used as a passage way by working employees moving from one work area to another.

            Mark Murphy, vice-president of human resources for Young’s Market in northern California for several years, confirmed to our investigator that the company has a long-standing policy of permitting campaign material to be posted on the walls around bulletin boards in break rooms.  He said this policy is the result of the limited space that the bulletin boards provide.  To obtain permission, the employee seeking to post the material shows it to the plant supervisor or plant manager and notes where it is requested to be placed.  The company has no written policy that states expressly that campaign material may be posted on the wall adjacent to the bulletin board during campaign season, but he said it is widely practiced.  Murphy stated further that the liberal posting policy during campaign season is open to all candidates and is administered on a non-discriminatory basis. 

            Rome Aloise, president of Local Union 853, told our investigator that he first learned of the banner when he received our investigator’s phone message on October 5.  He said he called the steward at Morgan Hill early on October 6, learned that the banner was up, and instructed that it be taken down.  Aloise said he gave the instruction even though he believed the posting did not violate the Rules.  Aloise stated that during election time, campaign banners and posters go up on the walls at Young’s and at other facilities “all the time in company break rooms.”  He said that company rules vary on what they allow, but generally during the election period, allowances are routinely made for anyone who asks to post campaign flyers and banners in the break rooms.  He said this was the case at the Morgan Hill facility, which has a liberal allowance policy for such postings.  Aloise had no knowledge as to when the banner was first posted, but he concluded that if the company had a policy that prohibited the banner placement on the wall, then the company would not have allowed it.

Analysis

            Article VII, Section 12(d) declares that “[n]o restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to use employer or Union bulletin boards for campaign publicity.  Similarly, no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support … on employer or Union premises.  Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a non-discriminatory basis.” 

            In Barker, 2006 ESD 242 (May 15, 2006), we held that “[t]he Rules’ protection of pre-existing rights to post campaign material on bulletin boards does not extend to areas other than boards, unless practice demonstrates that such areas have been used in lieu of or in addition to bulletin boards.”  We find that the practice in the break room at Young’s Market Morgan Hill distribution center permits posting of material on the wall adjacent to the bulletin board.  We find further that the practice is administered by the employer on a non-discriminatory basis.

            Accordingly, we DENY the protests.  In finding the pre-existing right to post on the wall of the break room here, we conclude that the practice permitted the Hoffa-Hall banner.  Accordingly, re-posting of the banner does not violate the Rules.  Further, the campaigns of competing candidates have the same right to post banners or other campaign material as has been extended to Hoffa-Hall.

            Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision.  The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor in any such appeal.  Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:

Kenneth Conboy

Election Appeals Master

Latham & Watkins

885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

New York, NY  10022

Fax: (212) 751-4864

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L, Washington, D.C.  20006, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.