Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: LOURDES GARCIA,                    )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 164

                                                                        )           Issued: April 8, 2016

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-177-021716-FW     

____________________________________)

            Lourdes Garcia, member, recording secretary, and delegate candidate on the Middleton slate in 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 Frank Halstead and other supporters of the Teamsters United 572 slate violated the Rules by misrepresenting to employers that they were employees of Local Union 572 in order to gain access for campaign purposes to areas of employer facilities that otherwise would be limited to employees and union representative.

            Election Supervisor representative Margaret Sheridan investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            As detailed in our decision in Halstead, 2016 ESD 166 (April 8, 2016), Frank Halstead, James Motty, and Francisco Amezcua appeared at the First Student, San Fernando facility on February 17, 2016, intending to campaign in support of Teamsters United 572 slate in the parking lot where employees park their cars.  However, Veronica Lopez, a representative of the employer, ordered Motty, the first to arrive, off the premises.  Motty discussed the directive with Lopez, stating that he had the right under the Rules to campaign in parking lots where members park their vehicles.  Lopez insisted that he leave, saying that only Lonnie Holmes, the local union business agent, was allowed to come on to the property.  Motty objected to Lopez’s directive but moved to the public sidewalk, outside the fence and in front of the facility to await the arrival of Amezcua and Halstead. 

            According to Motty, a few minutes after Motty’s encounter with Lopez, Lopez came out to the public sidewalk with Meeghan Flores, the location manager, to speak with Motty.  Flores told Motty that she had spoken with Lonnie Holmes by phone, who told her that he, Holmes, was the “only one allowed to come on the property.”  Flores instructed Motty to leave the area.  Flores and Lopez then returned to the building, leaving Motty on the public sidewalk.

When Amezcua arrived, Motty told him that Lopez had ordered him off the premises.  Motty and Amezcua discussed the matter briefly and then proceeded inside to show management the Rules provision and the Court order that permitted members to campaign in employer parking lots where members park their vehicles.  They presented the material to Gesela Jackson, a manager who said Lopez was busy, and told Jackson they were campaigning for the Local Union 572 delegates election.  Jackson made a copy of the materials but said they would have to leave the property, because “anyone can present papers.”  Motty and Amezcua returned to the public sidewalk, and Halstead arrived promptly.

Briefed on the situation by Motty and Amezcua, Halstead led them back into the building to discuss with management their right to campaign in the parking lot.  Halstead asked to speak with the location manager, Flores.  Flores was in her office and, after a brief period following Halstead’s request, appeared and spoke with Halstead and the others.  While awaiting Flores, Halstead took photos of Middleton slate campaign material posted on the employer’s bulletin board and stacked on the counter at dispatch where members sign in and pick up their bus keys.  When Flores appeared, Halstead explained that he and the other campaigners were members of Local Union 572 and had the right under the Rules to campaign in the parking lot.  Flores, accompanied by manager Jackson, did not accept Halstead’s statement.  Flores told Halstead they were on private property and that she had instructions from Lonnie Holmes that the campaigners were not allowed there.  Flores ordered Halstead and the others to leave the property, eventually summoning the police to enforce her order.  Insisting on this order, Flores refused to speak with OES representative Chris Mrak, who Halstead had phoned from the building to alert her that Flores was denying the campaigners parking lot access.  When the police arrived, they spoke with First Student managers and then to the campaigners.  Although the campaigners showed the police the Rules provision and the Court order permitting them to campaign in the parking lot, the police ordered them off the property.

            Protestor Garcia alleged that Halstead and the other campaigners gained access to the building on First Student’s property by misrepresenting themselves as employees of Local Union 572.  Garcia claimed that this alleged misrepresentation permitted the campaigners the ability to campaign inside the building, when the Rules permit them parking lot access only.

Garcia presented no evidence to support her allegations.  Garcia was not present at the facility, had no personal knowledge of events, and did not speak with any representative of First Student to obtain even hearsay information to substantiate the allegations.  Moreover, she did not identify any witness who claimed that Halstead, Motty, or Amezcua said they were local union employees. 

            Halstead denied stating that he was a local union employee, as did the other campaigners.  No manager or employee of First Student stated that Halstead or the others claimed they were local union employees.  Moreover, no evidence was presented, and we found none, that the campaigners engaged in any campaign activity inside the building.  Finally, the purpose the campaigners had for entering the building was not to campaign but to seek to reverse the employer’s directive that they not be on in the parking lot, where the Rules permitted them to be.

            Finding no evidence to support the protestor’s allegations, we DENY this protest.

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 164 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):