OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: DEREK CORREIA ) Protest Decision 2021 ESD 99
and CRAIG CHAPPELL, ) Issued: April 2, 2021
) OES Case No. P-119-031821-FW
Protestors. )
____________________________________)
Derek Correia and Craig Chappell, members of Local Union 542, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protest alleged that business agent Flavio Grijalva caused protestors to be denied access to the employee parking lot at El Centro Regional Medical Center, in violation of the Rules .
Election Supervisor representative Jim Devine investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Local Union 542 will elect 10 delegates and 6 alternate delegates to the IBT convention. The Members for Members 542 slate, comprised of rank-and-file members, is competing against the Teamsters 542 Members First slate, consisting of local union officials and rank-and-file members. The protestors here are delegate candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate.
On March 18, 2021, protestors sought to campaign in the employee parking lot at El Centro Regional Medical Center on Ross Avenue in El Centro CA. They alleged that the “head security supervisor” denied them access to the employee parking lot. They further alleged that the chief HR officer told them he had spoken with local union business Flavio Grijalva about the campaigners, and Grijalva allegedly replied, “That’s not our team!” Finally, protestors alleged the HR officer told them the hospital has a clause in their agreement with Local Union 542 prohibiting campaigning in the employee parking lot.
The protest concluded with this statement: “So we were denied access to the hospital employee parking lot.” The protest is not filed against the hospital, however. Rather, it names business agent Grijalva only.
Investigation showed that the hospital provides parking for employees in the parking lot of Central Baptist Church, located across the intersection of Imperial and Ross Avenues from the hospital. The employee parking lot is not staffed by security. Protestors did not seek to campaign there. Rather, they sought to campaign in a parking lot on hospital grounds, where employees do not and are not permitted to park. The security officer assigned to the parking lot where protestors sought to campaign refused to permit campaigning there, directing them instead to the public sidewalk. Protestors responded by asking to speak with HR. Luis Castro, hospital HR officer, was summoned. The campaigners gave him material from the OES website concerning the Article VII, Section 12(e) right of Teamster members to campaign in employer parking lots where employees park their vehicles. Castro reviewed the material and phoned Grijalva to discuss union member campaign rights. Castro asked Grijalva if the campaigners were his supporters. Grijalva did not know who Castro was dealing with but told Castro he did not believe supporters of his slate were campaigning at the hospital. Castro told Grijalva the campaigners were attempting to canvass in parking lots on hospital grounds, and both agreed that the employee parking lot where members were permitted to campaign was across the street. After the phone call with Grijalva, Castro told the campaigners they could not campaign in parking lots on hospital grounds but could campaign in the parking lot across the street where employees park. The campaigners then sought access to the hospital, claiming the right to “inspect the union bulletin board.” Castro denied access, citing covid-19 protocols. He then returned to the hospital, took a photo of the bulletin board, and sent it to one of the protestors electronically. Neither the campaigners nor Castro phoned the OES staff member who attempts to resolve parking lot access disputes before they become protests.
After the phone call with Castro, Grijalva emailed him the Rules provision concerning parking lot access. He also cautioned him that certain campaigners were claiming to be “with” the union, for the purpose of gaining campaign access to the facility under the pretense of inspecting the union bulletin board. Grijalva highlighted language that the parking lot access provision did not grant campaigners access to any other part of the employer’s premises. Article VII, Section 12(e), 2nd paragraph. Castro replied to this email to confirm that the campaigners sought such access and that he dealt with the request by providing a photo of the bulletin board. Castro also stated that the campaigners told him Grijalva was required to give him notice that they would seek to campaign there. Grijalva replied that the Rules do not impose any such requirement on him or the local union nor did he know the campaigners’ plans.
Protestors falsely claimed that the hospital denied them access to the parking lot where employees park their cars and that Grijalva prompted the hospital’s action. We find to the contrary that protestors sought to campaign in a parking lot where employees do not park and further sought to carry their campaign activity inside the hospital where it is not permitted. We find further that Castro, the hospital HR officer, directed them to the employee parking lot where they were permitted to campaign, a direction that was consistent with his discussion with Grijalva.
For these reasons, we DENY this protest. We address protestors’ false statements to the Election Supervisor in Vasquez, 2021 ESD 104 (April 9, 2021).
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. Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i). All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Barbara Jones
Election Appeals Master
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.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, all within the time prescribed above. Service may be accomplished by email, using the “reply all” function on the email by which the party received this decision. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones
2021 ESD 99
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
braymond@teamster.org
Edward Gleason
egleason@gleasonlawdc.com
Patrick Szymanski
szymanskip@me.com
Will Bloom
wbloom@dsgchicago.com
Tom Geoghegan
tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com
Rob Colone
rmcolone@hotmail.com
Barbara Harvey
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Kevin Moore
Mooregp2021@gmail.com
F.C. “Chris” Silvera
fitzverity@aol.com
Fred Zuckerman
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
ken@tdu.org
Derek Correia
Dmcorreia13@aol.com
Craig Chappell
glamiscraig@gmail.com
Flavio Grijalva
fgrijalva@teamsters542.org
Jaime Vasquez
jvasquez@teamsters542.org
Michael Miller
Miller.michael.j@verizon.net
Deborah Schaaf
dschaaf@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com