Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: FRANK HALSTEAD,                   )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 163

                                                                        )           Issued: April 8, 2016

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-172-021216-FW     

____________________________________)

            Frank Halstead, member of Local Union 572, 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 First Student, an employer under the jurisdiction of Local Union 572, violated the Rules by “interfering [with], coercing, and restraining” James Motty in the exercise of his rights to campaign.

            Election Supervisor representative Michael Miller investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            On February 11, 2016, James Motty, a member of Local Union 572, and other union members campaigned at First Student’s Pasadena, California facility.  This facility has no parking lot in which employees may park their cars; instead, employees use street parking and then walk into the facility to sign in, obtain their routes and keys, and exit to perform their bus routes. 

            Motty told our investigator he took up a position at the Lincoln Avenue entrance to the workplace at about 8:30 a.m. on February 11.  He said he met union members as they were entered the facility, speaking with them about Teamsters United and distributing campaign flyers.  After a short period, Motty said he was confronted by Arlene Haskins, assistant location manager for the employer, who insisted that he had no right to be present there and ordered him to leave.  Motty said he told Haskins he had the right to campaign there, and he stood his ground.  A short while later, two uniformed members of the Pasadena Police Department arrived and questioned Motty.  Motty said he told the police he was a union member with the right to campaign.  They left after instructing him to remain on the public sidewalk outside the facility and not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic into and out of the facility.

            Haskins told our investigator that she observed Motty and two other men in the bus yard on employer property, canvassing members and distributing flyers.  She also saw Motty up on the porch of the building, soliciting employees as they approached the time clock.  She observed Motty’s bike locked to a gate inside the property.  Haskins said she phoned facility manager Reggie Young, who was not present that morning, to advise him of the situation.  She said Young instructed her to direct the campaigners to leave the premises and to call the police if they did not.  With these instructions, Haskins said she returned outside and approached Motty, who was on employer property, and told him he was not permitted on the property, that he was impeding traffic and creating a safety hazard, and that he had to leave the property.  Motty refused, insisting that Haskins put the instruction in writing.  At this Haskins returned inside and phoned the police.  Haskins said the police responded.  She observed the police interact with Motty from inside the building and did not hear the exchange.  The result of their intervention was that Motty moved his bike from the gate and resumed campaigning outside the fence on the public sidewalk.  The police officers came into the building and reported to Haskins that they instructed Motty not to enter the property, telling him that his right to campaign at that location was limited to the public sidewalk.  Haskins said the police were on scene only a few minutes.  She was satisfied that the issue was resolved with Motty being limited to the sidewalk and not impeding pedestrian or vehicle traffic.

            Article VII, Section 12(e) grants union members the right to campaign in employer-provided parking lots where employees park their vehicles, despite that such parking lots typically are on property owned or controlled by the employer.  This provision enhances a free, fair, open and informed election because it permits campaigners the right to meet face-to-face with rank-and-file members and give them information and persuasion about the candidates and issues in the election.  Where the employer does not provide a parking lot for use by its employees, however, members who are not employed by and have no union business with the employer generally have no right to enter the premises to campaign.

            Although Motty asserted that summoning the police chilled his campaign right and made employees unwilling to interact with him, he had no right to be present on the property of an employer facility that did not contain a parking lot where employees parked their vehicles.  As such, he should have recognized that his refusal to leave the premises could result in police intervention.

            We find that the exchange with the police was brief and, under the circumstances, discreet.  Motty continued campaigning from his position on the sidewalk without any further interaction with the employer or the police until 11 a.m., the prearranged time he had set with the other campaigners for departing the premises. 

            On these facts, we DENY this protest, finding no impermissible interference with Motty’s campaign rights.

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 163

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):