Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: ALEXANDER MATOS,                )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 226

                                                                        )           Issued: May 27, 2016

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-204-030316-AT     

____________________________________)                                                                  

Alexander Matos, member of Local Union 592, 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 UPS security personnel impermissibly interfered with Matos’s right to campaign in an employer parking lot.

Election Supervisor representative Paul Dever investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            On March 3, 2016, protestor Matos campaigned in the parking lot where Teamsters members park their vehicles at the UPS facility in Richmond, VA.  He arrived and began campaigning for the Teamsters United slate of candidates for International office at about 4:15 p.m.  He stated that at about 6:15 p.m., he was approached by a UPS manager, who asked his name and requested to see some identification.  Matos complied.

            The protest further stated that a security guard then asked to see one of the flyers Matos was distributing.  Instead of showing the guard the flyer, Matos asked the guard if he was a Teamster member.  According to Matos, the guard said he was.  Matos tested this answer by asking the guard which local union he belonged to; Matos said the guard’s reply was “the same local as everyone else.”  Matos pursued this further, asking the guard which local union number the guard belonged to.  At this, the guard did not answer.  Matos then asked to see the guard’s union card; the guard said it was in his car.  The guard then walked away.  Matos then observed the guard ask to the see the flyer a member had received from Matos.

            Matos filed this protest alleging that the manager’s request for identification and the guard’s request to see the flyer “was an intimidation tactic and distraction maneuver which interfere[d] with me campaigning for Fred Zuckerman and Teamsters united slate.”  Matos told our investigator that he missed the opportunity to campaign to several members while interacting with the manager and the guard.  He said he wanted to expose UPS and Local Union 592 as harassers of political opponents.

            Investigation showed no material dispute in Matos’s description of the interactions with the manager and the guard.  The UPS manager told our investigator the reason he checked Matos’s identification was because UPS had recently terminated and barred from the premises an employee for making discriminatory slurs against another employee; the manager wanted to verify that the terminated employee had not returned to the worksite.  When Matos produced his identification, the manager concluded he was not the terminated employee and had the right to be there and ended the interaction.

            Counsel for UPS told our investigator that UPS merely sought Matos to identify himself and did not wish to interfere with his campaign right. 

            Article VII, Section 12(e) grants parking lot campaign rights to Teamster members.  Under that provision, the employer “may require reasonable identification to assure that a person seeking access to an employee parking lot pursuant to this rule is a candidate or other member entitled to such access.”  The UPS manager did not violate the Rules by requesting Matos to identify himself.  Further, we find that the encounter between the manager and Matos was very brief.  We note that the encounter with the guard could have been equally brief had Matos shown the guard the flyer, an act that would have verified that Matos indeed was campaigning in a Rules-regulated election and not engaged in commercial solicitation that UPS policy otherwise prohibits.

Our investigator advised the protestor that UPS did not seek to interfere with his campaign access.  Our investigator instructed the protestor to contact OES should he encounter interference from the employer while campaigning in employer parking lots.

No evidence was produced that Local Union 592 or its representatives played any role in the circumstances detailed here.

Accordingly, 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 226

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):