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 Ken Hall, candidate for IBT General Secretary-Treasurer on the Hoffa-Hall 2011 slate, campaigned inside a UPS hub in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in violation of the Rules.

            Election Supervisor representative Joe Childers investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact

            UPS maintains a firm policy restricting access to all non-public facilities, including its hub at Minneapolis, Minnesota, to its own employees.  The single exception relevant here is that UPS permits some union representatives who are not UPS employees to enter its facilities to conduct union business.

            The protest alleged that Ken Hall was permitted access to UPS/Minneapolis on October 13 and that he campaigned while there.

            Among other union positions, Hall serves as IBT director of the small package division.  He confirmed to our investigator that he visited UPS/Minneapolis on October 13.  He was accompanied by Local Union 638 secretary-treasurer Trevor Lawrence, president Tom Bucher, several business agents, and retired secretary-treasurer Mark Rime.  Hall said he went to the facility to see if UPS management was complying with an agreement the union reached with it in September at the national grievance panel meeting concerning harassment and intimidation of drivers by management.  Hall stated that he had visited several other facilities to check on compliance since the September agreement was reached.  He said he is always accompanied by the business agents and sometimes the local union principal officer because he usually does not know anyone at the employer’s premises.

            Hall said that on October 13, he and his entourage arrived at the facility at approximately 7:30 a.m., one-half hour before the 8:00 a.m. start of the day shift.  Mark Rime arrived at about 8 a.m.  Hall stated that he spoke with drivers as they arrived to inquire whether UPS management at that facility was complying with the agreement reached at the National Grievance Panel.  He was introduced to individual drivers by the officers and business agents for Local Union 638 or, when Rime arrived, by him.  Hall stated that on this morning he did not walk through the entire facility, as he had walked through the entirety of the same facility the day before. He told our investigator that based on his visit, he concluded UPS/Minneapolis was complying with the September anti-intimidation agreement. 

            Hall denied that he campaigned while inside the UPS facility and denied seeing anyone else campaign.  He stated that none of the members of his group had any campaign literature with them or were wearing campaign buttons, jackets or shirts.  He stated that he may have seen some stewards outside in the parking lot campaigning but they were not passing out literature.

            Hall stated that Rime came to the UPS facility specifically to see Hall because they had worked together for many years and had not seen each other in some time. 

            Rime told our investigator that he and Hall are good friends and had worked on the negotiating committee together for several years.  Rime retired in June 2011.  For some twenty years while employed by Local Union 638, Rime served as business agent for the members at UPS/Minneapolis and said he had a lot of friends there.  When Rime learned that Hall would be in town visiting the hub, he decided to go see him.  According to Rime, he did not ask Hall or the others the purpose of Hall’s visit, and Hall did not tell him. 

            While at the facility with Hall, Rime said he did not hear Hall ask anyone about UPS management’s compliance with the September anti-intimidation agreement, nor did Rime otherwise know that Hall was visiting to check on compliance.  Rime heard Hall introduced to individual drivers as the person who got them their last great contract.  Rime said he did not see any campaign activity at the facility.

            Rick Dittel, a UPS employee and member of Local Union 638, was a driver for 22 years before recently transferring to the feeder department.  After the September anti-intimidation agreement was reached and while he was still a driver, Dittel said he was harassed by management.  He described to our investigator an incident where his manager humiliated and threatened him concerning a customer complaint and accused him of treating the customer disrespectfully.  The manager warned Dittel that he was subject to dismissal over the incident, and summoned him and his steward to the manager’s office the next day.  Dittel described his manager’s actions at that meeting as intimidating.  Accordingly, he applied for a transfer to the feeder department because of the harassment.  The transfer was eventually granted, after Dittel filed a grievance over the lack of action on it. 

            On October 13, Dittel was still working as a driver.  He said he arrived at work that day at 7:45 a.m. and saw a number of union officials greeting drivers near the time clock where the drivers clocked in.  Among these officials was Tom Bucher, his business agent.  Dittel assumed that Bucher was present to discuss Dittel’s grievance over the delayed action on his transfer request.  Also present was Rime.  Dittel said that Rime introduced Hall to him as “the guy who got you your last great contract.”  Dittel said that Hall did not ask him about the harassment or the anti-intimidation agreement.  Dittel told our investigator that had he known Hall was present for that purpose, Dittel would have told him that the agreement was not honored in his case and that he was transferring to the feeder department as the direct result of the harassment. 

            Upon arriving at work, Dittel did not see anyone campaigning outside in the parking lot.  When he went inside, he saw the group including Hall, which he described as a “meet and greet.”  He said he saw Rime introducing Hall to drivers and to other employees as they arrived for work.  Although Dittel did not see any campaign literature, buttons or stickers, and did not say that Hall made any explicit request for support in the election, he concluded the officials and Rime were campaigning because he could conceive no other reason for their presence there, given that no union business was conducted with the drivers.

Christopher Roddy, a driver employed at the UPS/Minneapolis facility, stated he observed the group including Hall near the time clock inside the facility between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on the morning of October 13.  Roddy observed Rime, whom he knew, with Hall, whom he did not know.  He said none in the group spoke to him directly.  He overheard some conversation of the members of the Hall entourage and concluded it was about the election because he heard Sandy Pope’s name mentioned followed by “snickering.”  Contrary to Hall’s evidence, Roddy did not hear anyone say anything about harassment or an anti-intimidation agreement.  To Roddy’s observation, no union business was being conducted; instead, the line-up of Hall, the local union officials, and Rime was a meet and greet for Hall’s benefit. 

Analysis

            We find that Hall was greeting members of Local Union 683 at UPS/Minneapolis for a campaign rather than a union business purpose.  We reach this conclusion because neither the drivers we interviewed nor, significantly, Rime reported that they heard any questioning or discussion of the anti-intimidation agreement Hall said he was checking compliance on.  Further, Rime introduced Hall to drivers not as a union official seeking member information on employer compliance with an agreement but in laudatory terms as “the guy who got you your last great contract.”  While there is no evidence that Hall or persons acting on his behalf were distributing campaign literature or explicitly asked members for support in the election, we rely on the evidence that contradicts Hall’s stated business purpose for entering the facility and the totality of the circumstances to support our conclusion here.  Because ballots had just arrived and Hall, a leading candidate on the incumbent slate, was present in the workplace with no discernible union business purpose, we conclude that he and his entourage were inside the facility to campaign. 

As we found in Pope, 2011 ESD 352 (October 31, 2011), the Hall campaigners used their status as union representatives to gain access to a location to which they would not have been permitted but for that status, thereby using that status for a campaign purpose and eliciting an involuntary contribution to the Hoffa-Hall 2011 campaign from the employer.  That they conducted their “meet and greet” with drivers adjacent to the employer’s time clock signaled to members that they were present there with management’s knowledge and approval, yet had no union business purpose for being there.  Finally, the presence and role played by Rime, a retired local union official not in office when the anti-intimidation agreement was reached and, by his own statement, not present there to enforce it, further reinforced to members that union business was not the purpose of Hall’s visit.

            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 Hall, all other members of the Hoffa-Hall 2011 slate, and all supporters of that slate, to cease and desist from using their status as union representatives to gain campaign access to non-public areas of employer facilities.  We further order Hall, all other members of the Hoffa-Hall 2011 slate, and all supporters of that slate, to cease and desist from entering employer premises to campaign under circumstances where they know or should know that campaigners for other candidates have been excluded from the premises.

We order Local Union 638 to post the notice attached to this decision on its worksite bulletin boards at the UPS/Minneapolis facility.  The notice posting must be completed within one day of issuance of this decision.  Within one day after the posting is completed, the local union must submit a compliance affidavit to OES.

In contrast to the remedy we ordered in Pope, 2011 ESD 352 (October 31, 2011), we do not order remedial campaign mailings for the Pope and Gegare campaigns at Hoffa-Hall 2011 expense, concluding that such mailings would arrive too late to influence the votes of members exposed to the violation we find here.  This is consistent with the conclusion we reached in Hoffa-Hall 2011, 2011 ESD 355 (November 7, 2011).  Prompt posting of the notice will notify members at the facility where the violation occurred is coextensive with the violation and will allow members at the facility to act on that information if they choose. 

However, this is the second instance in which we have found a member of the Hoffa-Hall 2011 slate used his union status to gain access to a non-public area of an employer facility for a campaign purpose.  To deter further violations of this nature, we impose a fine on Hoffa-Hall 2011 of $1,000, which must be paid to OES within two days of issuance of this decision. 

            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.