September 12, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Clifford T. Chentnik
September 12, 1995
Page 1
Clifford T. Chentnik
N3066 Apricot Road
Lake Geneva, WI 53147
Teamsters Local Union 579
2214 Center Avenue
Janesville, WI 53546
Teamsters Local Union 325
5533 11th St.
Rockford, IL 61109
Roadway Express, Inc.
985 S. Main St.
Janesville, WI 53546
Clifford T. Chentnik
September 12, 1995
Page 1
RE: Election Office Case No. P-112-LU579-NCE
Gentlemen:
This pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-96 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Clifford T. Chentnik, a member of Local Union 579, employed by Roadway Express, Inc. (“Roadway” or “the Employer”). The protester alleges that Local Union 579, Local
Union 325 in Rockford, Illinois, and Roadway have colluded to close the Employer’s Janesville terminal, where employees are represented by Local Union 579, and to transfer the Janesville employees, including the protester, to the Employer’s Rockford terminal, which is under the jurisdiction of Local Union 325. The protester alleges that the motive for the collusion between Local Unions 579 and 325 and Roadway is to weaken General President Ron Carey’s campaign for reelection by preventing the candidacy of the protester, who writes in his protest that he is “committed” to supporting the Carey slate.
Mr. Chentnik asserts that if he is transferred to Local Union 325, he will be no longer be able to run for delegate in Local Union 579, where he is active and well-known. He contends that the Employer and the two Local Unions have proposed August 13, 1995 for the shutdown and transfer because that date will prevent the protester from becoming a delegate from Local Union 325 because he will not have sufficient time to become known in that Local Union before its delegate nominations are held on September 10, 1995.
Clifford T. Chentnik
September 12, 1995
Page 1
The protester contends that Roadway has no legitimate reason for closing the Janesville terminal since it is the Employer’s most profitable terminal in the area. The protester argues that the willingness of Local Union 579 to collaborate with Roadway in prior situations provides further basis for concluding that the Local Union collaborated with Roadway here. He cites as evidence of past collusion between Local Union 579 and Roadway that the Local Union 579 Business Agent abandoned a valid unfair labor practice charge against Roadway by intentionally letting a statute of limitations expire, despite her training in labor law and being reminded of the deadline.
The protester claims that additional grounds for finding a conspiracy are found in Roadway’s alleged animus against the Union. This hostility, according to the protester, is demonstrated by alleged threats from the Janesville terminal manager that the terminal would be closed if the protester and other members continued to file grievances. The protester cites as further evidence of animus the demotion of the Janesville terminal manager, allegedly because of his inability to get along with the Union.
Regional Coordinator Judy Kuhn investigated this protest on behalf of the Election Officer.
Although contacted on behalf of the Election Officer, Roadway did not provide any information to the investigator. The two Local Unions deny that they colluded with Roadway to close the Janesville terminal or transfer the Janesville employees to Rockford.
The investigation revealed a current trend among freight companies to consolidate operations. For example, Consolidated Freight recently proposed a national change of operations involving terminals in many states. Central Carthage, whose employees are represented by Local Union 579, and Carolina Freight, whose workers are represented by Local Union 325 have also consolidated their terminals. A witness supplied by the protester explained that since drivers’ wages have lowered in recent years, and vehicles have become more fuel efficient, companies have closed and consolidated terminals to reduce overhead, even it involves a longer drive time for the employees. Although the economic statistics presented by the protester demonstrate that the operating costs at the Janesville terminal are a consistently lower percentage of revenue than at other Roadway terminals in the Midwest district, they also indicate that the revenues at Janesville were cut by more than 50 percent in 1994, when a major account moved away from Janesville.
Clifford T. Chentnik
September 12, 1995
Page 1
On July 13, 1995, Roadway proposed to close its Janesville, Wisconsin terminal and its Sterling/Rock Falls, Illinois terminal, and to transfer most of the work to its Rockford, Illinois terminal. As a justification, the Employer asserted that the consolidation is necessary “in order to reduce costs and improve customer service.” The Employer has advised the Unions that it intends to offer employment at Rockford to the seven employees on the seniority list at Janesville, and the three employees on the list at Sterling/Rock Falls. The Local Unions state that they have met with Roadway concerning the proposed Janesville closing and transfer but have not reached any agreement on the shutdown or its effects. The protester provided the Election Officer with a purported “Memorandum of Understanding Between Teamsters Local Union 325 in Rockford, Illinois and Roadway Express, Inc.” concerning the shutdown and transfer, but the document was not signed by Local Union 325.
The applicable collective bargaining agreement requires Roadway to obtain the approval of the Union and the Employer’s Joint Change of Operations Committee prior to any “transfer[], change[] or modifi[cation]” of any terminal. Local Union 579 protested the Janesville closing before the Change of Operations Committee at a hearing on August 13, 1995. Nevertheless, the Committee approved the Change of Operations with the details to be worked out between the Local Unions and Roadway Express on the local level. In accordance with the Change of Operations Committee’s decision, the closing of the Janesville terminal can now take effect, at Roadway’s discretion, anytime within 30 days after August 13.
The Rules prohibit retaliation due to political expression which is protected by the Rules.[1] See, Article VIII, Sections 11(a),(f). However, here there is no evidence of collusion to prevent the protester’s candidacy for delegate. The protester’s evidence of past collaboration does not support that either Local Union 579 or Local Union 325 conspired or agreed to Roadway’s proposal to close the Janesville terminal or to the date for the shutdown. The Local Unions have been willing to discuss the Employer’s proposal, although no agreement has been reached. Local Union 579 protested the proposal before the Change of Operations Committee, and the Local Unions have reserved their rights to grieve the proposal. Roadway proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for closing the terminal. There is no evidence that either the actions of the Local Unions or Roadway in regard to the closing of the terminal were motivated by the desire to prevent Mr. Chetnick from being a candidate in the delegate elections. The evidence, therefore, does not establish retaliation against
Mr. Chentnik in violation of the Rules.
Based on the foregoing, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Clifford T. Chentnik
September 12, 1995
Page 1
Clifford T. Chentnik
September 12, 1995
Page 1
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon
180 Maiden Lane, 36th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Fax (212) 248-2655
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy
Judy Kuhn, Regional Coordinator
[1]The protester has alleged that the Janesville terminal manager has demonstrated anti-union animus by threatening to close the terminal if the protester and other members continued to file grievances. The Election Officer has jurisdiction over employers only for retaliation or threat of retaliation against a “Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules . . .” Article VIII, Section 11(f). Retaliation for the filing of grievances is within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. 29 U.S.C.§§157, 158(a)(1), 160.