Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: HOFFA-HALL 2016,                      )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 64

                                                                        )           Issued: January 8, 2016

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-071-112415-NE     

____________________________________)

            Hoffa-Hall 2016 filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that Teamsters United obtained an impermissible employer and union endorsement, in violation of the Rules.

            Election Supervisor representative Peter Marks investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            Investigation showed that a UPS package car driver, Ray Bruins, slid a Teamsters United bumper sticker into a transparent sleeve UPS supplies to drivers for use on duty to hold their log books.  On two occasions six days apart in November 2015, the sleeve containing the bumper sticker was seen resting on the dash of the UPS package car, with the sticker clearly legible through the vehicle windshield.  On both occasions, the vehicle was parked inside a building in the UPS hub.  The worksite is under the jurisdiction of Local Union 251, a Rhode Island union whose principal officer is Matt Taibi, a candidate on the Teamsters United slate.

            The driver, a steward, admitted his conduct to our investigator.  The sticker was not affixed to the logbook or to the transparent sleeve that held the logbook; instead, the sticker’s protective backing remained in place and the sticker rested inside the sleeve.  After the protest was filed, the driver removed the sticker and has not since displayed it in during working hours or in or on employer property or vehicles.

            The protest contended that Teamsters United obtained an impermissible and involuntary employer contribution from UPS by the driver’s display of the campaign sticker inside the hub in a work vehicle.  The protest further contended that Teamsters United also obtained an impermissible and involuntary union contribution from the local union, given the driver’s status as a union steward.

            The Rules protect members’ pre-existing rights to solicit campaign support in non-work areas of employer facilities on non-work time.  Article VII, Section 12(d); see, e.g., DePietro , 2010 ESD 52 (December 8, 2010).  This protection generally does not extend to permit campaign activity in work areas on work time, other than activity incidental to work.

            UPS maintains and enforces a policy prohibiting display of stickers, pins, and the like by personnel such as package car drivers who interact with customers and the public. Further, UPS’s policy prohibits display of campaign materials in its vehicles.  Given this policy, no preexisting right existed by which the driver here could permissibly display the Teamsters United sticker through the window of his UPS truck, a work area.  Accordingly, we find that the conduct violated the Rules as an impermissible and involuntary employer endorsement of Teamsters United.

            We do not, however, find an impermissible and involuntary endorsement of Teamsters United by the local union.  The driver although a steward was not acting as such or engaged in union activity while displaying the sticker.  Accordingly, we find insufficient nexus between his campaign activity and his union position to find a violation.

Having found that the driver’s display of the sticker on two separate days violated the Rules but was promptly remedied with removal of the sticker and a promise not to engage in the same conduct again, we deem this protest RESOLVED.  This result is consistent with previous rulings involving the prompt removal of bumper stickers or posters displayed ad hoc on employer property, which have held the removal sufficient to resolve the protest.  See, e.g., Halstead, 2006 ESD 386 (October 26, 2006); Wright, 2006 ESD 361 (October 2, 2006); Leedham Slate, 2006 ESD 301 (July 5, 2006); Halstead, 2005 ESD 31 (June 6, 2005); Domeny, 2001 EAD 499 (October 5, 2001); Speak, 2001 EAD 239 (March 14, 2001). 

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:

Kathleen A. Roberts

Election Appeals Master

JAMS

620 Eighth Avenue, 34^th floor

New York, NY 10018

kroberts@jamsadr.com

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, 1050 17^th Street, N.W., Suite 375, Washington, D.C. 20036, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

                                                                        Richard W. Mark

                                                                        Election Supervisor

cc:        Kathleen A. Roberts

            2016 ESD 64 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):