Protest Decisions

October 12, 1995

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Robert D. Walston

7133 S. 86th Avenue

Justice, IL 60458

Eddie Kornegay, Trustee

Teamsters Local Union 743

300 S. Ashland Avenue

Chicago, IL 60607

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-128-LU743-CHI

Gentlemen:

This pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-96 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Robert D. Walston, a member of Local Union 743.  The protester alleges that Local Union 743 Trustee Eddie Kornegay used union funds to engage in campaign activity on behalf of General President Ron Carey by requiring Local Union 743 business agents to distribute accreditation petitions on behalf of Mr. Carey to the local union stewards during working hours.

Local Union 743 responds by admitting that Mr. Kornegay asked Local Union 743's director of operations, Mr. Buffington, to distribute Carey petitions to business agents. As

Mr. Buffington saw the business agents, he asked them to take the petitions to the union stewards.  The local union contends that although the stewards were not instructed in permissible ways to collect signatures on the petitions under the Rules, neither the business agents nor the stewards were pressured to take the petitions.  Moreover, the business agents were informed by Mr. Buffington that the local union would circulate petitions for any candidate who so requested.

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Julie Hamos.  Three of eight stewards identified by the protester and one business agent agreed to speak with the investigator.[1]

Robert D. Walston

October 12, 1995

Page 1

The investigation revealed that the business agents were given petitions by

Mr. Buffington and were not instructed on how and when it would be appropriate to circulate the petitions under the Rules.  There is no dispute that distribution of the petitions was voluntary.   The business agent interviewed by the regional coordinator met with Mr. Buffington on

August 14, 1995.  Mr. Buffington gave the business agent thirty petitions for Mr. Carey and asked that they be returned by August 25, 1995.  Mr. Buffington told him, “If you don’t get them signed, don’t worry about it.”  The business agent went to eight work sites for the sole purpose of distributing the petitions to union stewards.  The business agent admitted he had no other business at these work sites.

One steward related to the investigator that he received a call from the security desk at his place of  employment at about 10:00 a.m. on August 18, 1995, stating that the business agent wanted to see him in the front lobby.  When he arrived in the lobby, the business agent wanted to know if the steward would accept petitions to sign, which the steward agreed to do.  They had a friendly conversation which lasted about three minutes.  The steward told the investigator that the business agent had no other reason to be on the premises.  The business agent did not discuss with the steward any restrictions concerning campaigning on working hours.  The steward circulated the petitions for Mr. Carey and returned them to the business agent.

In two other instances, the request to circulate petitions for Mr. Carey was made in situations where the business agent was engaged in other business.  In one, the steward stated that he was asked by his business agent if he would circulate petitions on August 18, 1995.  The steward was advised that he could do “whatever he wanted.”  The steward then wrote “no” on the envelope that contained the petitions and gave them back to the business agent.  This encounter took approximately one minute and occurred when the business agent was on the work site for contract negotiations.  The other incident occurred at a bargaining session when a steward, along with two other stewards and two other members of the negotiating committee were asked by the business agent to circulate petitions for Mr. Carey on August 17, 1995.  The discussion took approximately two minutes and took place directly before contract negotiations commenced.

The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(b), permit union members, including union officers, the right to participate in campaign activities and to openly support or oppose any candidate subject to the following restrictions:

[S]uch campaigning must not involve the expenditure of Union funds.  Accordingly, officers and employees (and other members) of the Union may not campaign on time that is paid for by the Union.  Campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, violative of this section.

Robert D. Walston

October 12, 1995

Page 1

The Rules permit campaign activity that is incidental to work.  Thus, the short conversations between the business agents and stewards which occurred prior to commencement of contract negotiations are not in violation of the Rules.  See Dillon, Case No. P-467-LU284-CLE (March 4, 1991).  In the other instances investigated, however, the business agent was campaigning, even if in ignorance of the Rules, when he had no other legitimate union business to conduct on the property.  Thus, when the business agents distributed the petitions to stewards at work sites where they had no other reason for being at that property, Local Union 743 violated Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules.  See Kelly, Case No. P-600-LU705-CHI, et seq.

(March 27, 1991).

When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.”  Article XIV, Section 4.  In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.

In this case, the evidence the Election Officer’s investigation was able to obtain discloses that while there is evidence that one or more business agents violated the prohibition of campaigning on time that is paid for by the union, the violations were of an extremely limited duration of one to three minutes on a work site.  The Election Officer therefore orders that Local Union 743 take the following actions:

1.  Post the attached notice on all union bulletin boards advising its members that a violation of the Rules has occurred.

2.  Within seven (7) days of the date of this decision, Mr. Kornegay shall transmit a copy of this decision and order with the attached cover letter retyped on local union stationary and signed by Mr. Kornegay to each of the business agents and stewards of Local Union 743.

3.  The local union trustee shall file an affidavit with the Election Officer demonstrating that the local union posted the notice consistent with this decision, and steps the local union has taken to comply with the Election Officer’s order within two (2) days of the transmission of the decision and order to the business agents and stewards as set forth in #2 above.

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:

Kenneth Conboy, Esq.

Latham and Watkins

885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

New York, NY  10022 

Fax (212) 751-4864

Robert D. Walston

October 12, 1995

Page 1

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:               Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator

NOTICE TO TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 743 MEMBERS

FROM EDDIE KORNEGAY, TRUSTEE

The Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) govern the right of union officers and employees, if IBT members, to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to openly support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.  The Rules prohibit the expenditure of union funds in support of campaign activity. Accordingly, officers and employees (and other members) of the union may not campaign on time that is paid for by the union.  Campaigning incidental to regular union business does not violate the Rules.

The Election Officer has determined that Local Union 743 violated the Rules by asking its business agents and stewards to voluntarily solicit signatures on accreditation petitions for Ron Carey, a candidate for general president, without instructing them that such activity must not be conducted on time paid for by the local union.  The Election Officer also found that when business agents went to some work sites and asked stewards to solicit signatures on these petitions where they had no other reason for being at that property, Local Union 743 violated Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules.

Any complaint that the local union has violated the Rules should be immediately reported to Barbara Zack Quindel, Election Officer, IBT, at her Washington, D.C. office.  All such reports shall be immediately investigated and in the event of a violation, appropriate remedial action taken.

______________________________

EDDIE KORNEGAY

TRUSTEE             

This is an official notice and must remain posted for 30 consecutive days from the day of posting, and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material.

Prepared and approved by Barbara Zack Quindel, Election Officer, IBT.

[Local Union 743 Stationery]

Addressee

Dear [Fill in name of business agent or steward],

The Election Officer has determined that Local Union 743 violated the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by asking its business agents and stewards to voluntarily solicit signatures on accreditation petitions for Ron Carey, a candidate for general president, without instructing the stewards that such activity must not be conducted on time paid for by the local union.  The Election Officer also found that when certain business agents went to some work sites and asked stewards to solicit signatures on these petitions, they had no other reason for being at that property.  In doing so, Local Union 743 violated Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules.

The Election Officer has ordered me to transmit a copy of her decision and order to each of the business agents and stewards of Local Union 743.

In compliance with her order, I am enclosing a copy of the decision of the Election Officer in Election Office Case No. P-128-LU743-CHI. 

Sincerely,

Eddie D. Kornegay

Trustee