Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: HOFFA-HALL 2016,                        )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 307

                                                                        )           Issued: October 19, 2016

            Protestor.                                            )           OES Case No. P-386-101116-SO     

____________________________________)                      

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 supporters campaigning at a UPS facility temporarily attached a campaign banner to an employer-owned shelter, in violation of the Rules.

            Election Supervisor representative Dolores Hall investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

The protest alleged that Teamsters United supporters affixed a campaign banner “to the entrance to UPS McAllen[1] in Texas ….  It is intentionally positioned so that every single person coming in has to see it.  As you know, affixing campaign materials to company property violates the Rules since it is seen as use of employer property and has the appearance of a company endorsement.”

A photo attached to the protest, as well as a second one supplied during the investigation, showed a rectangular vinyl-coated cloth banner approximately 1½ x 3 feet in size, printed in blue, yellow, and white and bearing the message “Fred Zuckerman Teamsters United,” hanging from the entrance archway of a lean-to shelter that adjoined the exterior wall of the stone-and-mortar UPS facility in Harlingen, TX.  The shelter was constructed with what appeared to be 4-inch cold-formed hot-rolled steel square tubes and was sided on two sides and roofed with corrugated fiberglass panels.  A third side abutted the building and the fourth, from which the banner was hanging from the archway, was open to the air.  Investigation showed this lean-to served exclusively as the employee breakroom.  As such, it was a non-work area and employees using it were on non-work time.  John Palmer, a candidate for International office on the Teamsters United slate, campaigned in this area on or about October 10, 2016.

The photos of Palmer’s campaign activity and the campaign banner were taken by two supporters of Hoffa-Hall 2016, who forwarded them to that slate’s representatives believing that the Rules barred Palmer’s activity on employer premises under all circumstances.

Palmer told our investigator he hung the campaign banner on the archway of the breakroom for two reasons, first that it was a breakroom where campaigning was permitted, and second because Hoffa-Hall stickers were affixed on the walls inside the breakroom leading him to conclude that the practice in that locale permitted displays of campaign material in that space.

Investigation showed that, contrary to the protest’s allegation, the banner could be viewed only by employees and was not positioned “so that every person coming in” to the facility could see it.  Customers using the facility for their parcel business passed on the far side of the lean-to such that the open end of the lean-to where the banner was placed was out of view. 

Investigation further showed that Hoffa-Hall stickers were affixed inside the breakroom when the Teamsters United campaigners arrived; they remained in place after the Teamsters United campaigners removed their banner and left when they had concluded campaigning that day.

            Article VII, Section 12(a) of the Rules provides that “[a]ll Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities … including the right to support or oppose any candidate.”  The same subsection provides that “campaigning during … paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar time off is not violative of this section.”  Article VII, Section 12(d) declares that “[n]o restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to use employer or Union bulletin boards for campaign publicity.  Similarly, no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support … on employer or Union premises.  Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a non-discriminatory basis.” 

These provisions make clear that Palmer and his supporters did not violate the Rules by campaigning in an employee break area at UPS-Harlingen.  Further, Palmer properly concluded from the presence of Hoffa-Hall stickers inside the break area that he enjoyed a pre-existing right to hang the Teamsters United banner there.  Ream, Pope, & Gegare-Sheard, 2011 ESD 339 (October 10, 2011); Moerler, 2006 ESD 371 (October 13, 2006).

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 307

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):