Protest Decisions

            The Sandy Pope campaign filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that numerous Hoffa-Hall 2011 stickers were placed on employer property at a California worksite, thereby obtaining an employer contribution to Hoffa-Hall 2011 in violation of the Rules.

            Election Supervisor representative Michael Miller investigated this protest. 

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            The protest alleged that Hoffa-Hall 2011 stickers had been placed on employer property at a UPS Freight facility in Fontana, California, including forklifts, vending machines, windows, and other property.  This facility is under the jurisdiction of Local Union 63.

Investigation showed that a Hoffa-Hall 2011 campaign team headed by Randy Cammack, principal officer of Local Union 63 and elected candidate for IBT Western region vice president, campaigned at the facility on October 10, distributing campaign leaflets and stickers.  Photos of employer fixtures and equipment taken the next day inside the facility showed Hoffa-Hall 2011 stickers affixed to several forklifts, a yard truck, the glass enclosing a bulletin board, vending machines, a filing cabinet, and a safety poster.  Sam Stewart, the business agent responsible for the facility, stated that he was present for the campaign activity on October 10.  He told our investigator that Cammack instructed the campaigners what was permitted and prohibited with respect to the stickers.  However, these instructions were not passed on to the rank-and-file members to whom the stickers were distributed.  Stewart said that he and stewards who work at the facility understood that campaign stickers should not be affixed to employer equipment and facilities at the worksite.  On October 11, he agreed to have the stickers removed by October 12.  On October 12, he reported that all the stickers had been removed. 

Stewart also reported that a similar saturation campaign effort had been made at the Ontario, California airport facility where more than 1,000 members are employed.  There, too, stickers were distributed to the oncoming shift.  Stewart told our investigator that he would communicate to the other business agents and the stewards responsible for that facility to insure that campaign stickers are not placed on employer equipment, fixtures, and walls there.

Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) bars an employer from contributing “anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate.”  The same provision prohibits a candidate from accepting or using such a contribution.

Affixing campaign stickers to employer equipment or fixtures violates this provision.  Such placement promotes the names of particular candidates competing in the election with assistance from the employer (even if that assistance is involuntary).  Pasting campaign stickers on employer equipment and fixtures communicates to members at the facility that the candidates have support at the facility.  To the extent an employer tolerates one-sided postingsit implies that the employer either condones the campaign activity or endorses the candidate.  This acceptance of employer contribution has no place in this election.

In past cases involving isolated and temporary placement of a single sticker or sign on an employer truck or fence, we have ordered removal of the sticker and the campaign to cease and desist from accepting such contributions.  Hoffa-Hall 2011, 2011 ESD 329 (September 26, 2011); Pope, 2011 ESD 332 (September 28, 2011).  Here, however, we confront an instance where a campaign has engaged in saturation campaigning of consecutive shift changes of multiple facilities, distributing stickers to members arriving at the facilities for their shifts.  Under these circumstances, it is foreseeable that some members receiving the stickers will walk into the facility and affix the sticker to employer equipment, thereby carrying the campaign message to areas of the facility – including the work floor – where the campaigners themselves may not go.  This will not be tolerated.

            Accordingly, we GRANT the protest.

Remedy

When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.

            We order the Hoffa-Hall 2011 campaign to cease and desist from using employer resources to campaign.  While the campaign may distribute stickers as promotional material, campaigners at worksites must be instructed to tell members receiving the stickers not to affix them on employer property.  If a mass sticker distribution at a worksite again results in mass paste-ups, the responsible campaign will be fined. 

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.