Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: DAVE CINTRON,                           )           Protest Decision 2017 ESD 375

                                                                        )           Issued: January 27, 2017

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-409-110416-NE           

____________________________________)                      

Dave Cintron, member and elected delegate from Local Union 804, 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 a UPS supervisor impermissibly interfered with his campaign activity.

            Election Supervisor representatives Peter Marks and Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

On Friday, November 4, 2016, protestor Cintron campaigned for Teamsters United at the UPS Manhattan North facility on Canal Place in the Bronx NY, a worksite under the jurisdiction of Local Union 804.  He arrived at approximately 7:00 a.m. and campaigned until after 9:00 a.m., canvassing members who work there as pre-load, package car drivers, and feeder drivers.  The Manhattan North facility does not have an employee parking lot.  Cintron was campaigning on a public sidewalk immediately adjacent to a door where employees enter and exit the workplace.

Cintron stated that sometime around 8:00 a.m., a man later identified as Corey Williams exited the building onto the sidewalk where Cintron was canvassing and approached him.  Cintron, not immediately recognizing that Williams was a supervisor, offered him some campaign literature.  This prompted Williams to ask Cintron about the candidates competing in the election.  Cintron stated that when he noticed that Williams was wearing a black shirt with a UPS insignia and a vest, he suspected that Williams might be a supervisor.  Cintron stated he approached Williams and asked him directly if he was a supervisor.  Cintron stated that Williams replied, “I don’t want to see your paper, go away.”  Cintron told our representative that, after this exchange, he moved on and tried to talk to other members, but Williams “stayed outside to intimidate members from talking with me about the election.” 

Although Williams told Cintron when asked that he was a supervisor, Cintron sought confirmation from a feeder driver who worked out of the building, who told Cintron that Williams was in fact a supervisor.  During this period, Cintron said he heard Williams tell members Cintron was canvassing, “Don’t talk to him.  He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”  Hearing this, Cintron approached Williams again, told him that he was interfering with union activity, and said, “I could file charges against you.”  According to Cintron, Williams replied, “Fine, go ahead,” gave his name to Cintron, and then went inside.  Williams did not engage in any conduct that Cintron regarded as interfering or intimidating after Cintron told him that he “could file charges on you.”

According to Cintron, Williams spent a total of “10-20 minutes” outside, “intimidat[ing] members from talking about the election,” which Cintron stated was “employer harassment and an employer contribution to the Hoffa campaign, which is supported by UPS management.”  Cintron told our representative that he did not observe Williams take Cintron’s campaign literature from members, direct or suggest that they surrender that literature to him, or direct or suggest that they throw the literature away.  Rather, Cintron stated that Williams’ alleged violation was his presence in the same area where Cintron was campaigning.

A witness identified to our representative by the protestor stated that he works as a feeder driver from the Manhattan North facility, knows the supervisor involved in this protest, and was outside working during the time the supervisor and the protestor interacted.  According to the witness, the exchange lasted approximately two minutes.  The witness was unable to hear what was said by either person, however.  The witness stated that he first observed the supervisor in that area giving work instructions to a driver.  He then turned his attention to Cintron, and the two had the exchange.  Following the exchange, the supervisor reentered the building.

Article VII, Section 12(a) protects members’ rights to support or oppose any candidate, to engage in campaign activity, and to distribute campaign literature.  On the facts presented, we conclude that Williams did not substantially interfere with Cintron’s protected activity.  The exchange commenced with Cintron giving literature to Williams, which prompted a discussion of the candidates and issues in the campaign.  It ended with Cintron telling Williams that he was interfering with Cintron’s campaigning.  For purposes of our analysis, we accept that during the interim, which according to the witness the protestor identified lasted a very brief time, Williams disparaged Cintron to members but did not attempt to halt his activity or prevent members from receiving and retaining the flyers he distributed.  We conclude that this very brief interaction during Cintron’s campaign activity of more than two hours did not substantially interfere with Cintron’s rights under the Rules.

For these reasons, 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

            2017 ESD 375

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):