Protest Decisions

September 19, 1995

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Alvis Harrington

September 19, 1995

Page 1

Alvis Harrington

September 19, 1995

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-146-LU890-CSF

Gentlepersons:

Alvis Harrington

September 19, 1995

Page 1

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Alvis Harrington, a member of Local Union 890 who has been nominated as delegate to the International Convention from his Local Union.  The protester alleges that in various ways the Local Union has unlawfully sought to deny his right to become a delegate.

The protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Victoria Chin.

The protester first alleges that Local Union 890 Business Agent Mike Johnston attempted to deny the protester’s right to be nominated for delegate by questioning the form of the protester’s acceptance of nomination and requiring him to verify his eligibility for nomination the day before the nomination meeting.  Local Union 890 responds that it reasonably questioned whether Mr. Harrington had provided to the Local Union sufficient notice of acceptance of nomination as required by the Rules.

The protester next alleges that the Local Union deleted names of two members of his slate from a list of nominees posted on bulletin boards at two of the employers whose employees are represented by the Local Union.  The Local Union denies that it altered the lists, and points out that it replaced several lists that were missing from the bulletin boards.

The protester also alleges that Local Union 890 Vice President and Business Agent Tony Gonzalez ridiculed him, unlawfully campaigned against him, and violated his right to make confidential communications by showing members and commenting on correspondence between the protester and various state and federal agencies.  The Local Union denies that the correspondence was confidential or that its disclosure involved campaigning or ridicule, and further claims that the Local Union had legitimate reasons for disclosure and comment on the correspondence.

The protester then alleges that Local Union 890 officers have retaliated against him by circulating petitions to remove two shop stewards, one of whom is a member of the protester’s slate, and the other, a member of the same slate as the protester in a previous election for Local Union officers.  The protester further alleges that the employers of the two stewards are retaliating against them by documenting their work performance for possible termination.

Finally, the protester alleges that he has been the victim of retaliation since he filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Labor against the 1994 election of Local Union 890 officers.  He further claims that the retaliation has escalated since Labor Department of Labor against the Local Union seeking to overturn the results of the elections.

Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules declares that all Local Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office. The Rules also prohibit retaliation for exercising any right guaranteed under the Rules, Article VIII, Section 11(f).  The multiple allegations in the protest are analyzed as follows.

I.              Request for Written Acceptance of Nomination

Alvis Harrington

September 19, 1995

Page 1

At the Local Union 890 nomination meeting, Business Agent Mike Johnston, upon learning that the protester was absent from the meeting and had submitted a written acceptance of his nomination to the Regional Coordinator, inquired whether the Local Union had received written acceptance of nomination referenced by Article II, Section 5(g).  During the meeting, a  member presented the Regional Coordinator with a copy of the protester’s acceptance, which the Regional Coordinator accepted.  The protester was nominated for delegate and his candidacy has been posted and will be included on the ballot.  When the business agent asked about the written acceptance, it had not been provided to the Local Union pursuant to the Rules.  His inquiry was reasonable and did not violate the Rules.

II.              Question Concerning Eligibility

Prior to the nomination meeting, the protester asked the Local Union to verify his eligibility to run for delegate.  The day before the nomination meeting, Local Union 890 President Franklin Gallegos advised the protester that eligibility verification must be requested from the Election Officer or the Regional Coordinator.[1]  There is no evidence, however, that the Local Union president violated the Rules by interfering with the right of the protester to be nominated and run for delegate.[2]

III.              Posting of Nominations for Delegate

Article II, Section 6 of the Rules requires the Local Union secretary-treasurer, within five (5) days of the nomination meeting(s), to post on all union bulletin boards a list of all nominated candidates by name and by slate affiliation, if known.  With regard to the charge that the Local Union altered posted lists of nominees, the investigation disclosed that at Gilroy Foods, one of the employers where alteration is alleged, accurate lists of nominees have been posted without alteration.  At the other employer, Basic Vegetables, names of candidates on the protester’s slate were crossed off on one of the lists posted for several days before it was replaced with a clean list.  There is no evidence as to who crossed off names of members of the protester’s slate.

When Local Union 891 learned of this protest, its business agent, Steve Garcia, checked the bulletin boards at Gilroy Foods and Basic Vegetables and found that some of the lists had been removed from those bulletin boards to which all employees had access. 

Mr. Garcia removed the lists remaining and posted additional correct and unmarked lists on locked bulletin boards.  Accordingly, with regard to this aspect of the protest, there is no evidence that Local Union 891 violated the Rules requiring posting of accurate lists of delegate nominees or in any other respect.

Alvis Harrington

September 19, 1995

Page 1

IV.              Comments Concerning the Protester’s Correspondence

The allegedly confidential correspondence by the protester, which he claims was ridiculed by Local Union representatives, consists of letters to a multitude of persons, including the chief executive officers of various corporations whose employees are represented by the union, the local district attorney, a United States attorney, members of Congress, the IBT general president and the president of the United States.  The Election Officer does not find the correspondence was confidential.

In one of the letters, the protester alleged “four months of harassing surveillance” by persons “possibly connected with Teamster Local 890's representation,” and asked, “should I just become a postal employee and settle all of it?”  The Local Union claims that in response to such statements, it instructed Local Union 890 Vice President Tony Gonzalez to speak to several employees about the statement because it raised serious concerns that the protester might pose a threat to union members and staff.   The protester alleges that in showing the letter to members, Mr. Gonzalez told them, in reference to the protester, “He’s gotta be crazy! Why vote for him?”  Mr. Gonzalez denies making the alleged comments. 

The evidence is inconclusive as to whether Mr. Gonzalez made the comments attributed to him by the protester.  However, even if the comments were made, the comments were within the protected right of a union member to freely criticize or defend the conduct of Union members or officials, including candidates for office.  See, Dunn, P-110-LU25-BOS (July 28, 1995), affirmed sub nom.  In re: Dunn, 95 - Elec. App. - 8 (KC) (August 21, 1995).  

V.              Alleged Petitions to Remove Stewards

The protester claims that the Local Union has retaliated against him as well as

Anthony Vanella and Guadalupe Cebreros, members of the protester’s slate, by trying to remove them from their positions as shop stewards.  There is no evidence of any effort to deprive Mr. Vanella of his stewardship.  With regard to Ms. Cebreros, there is a petition circulating to remove her based on a dispute between her and other employees.  There is no evidence that this effort was instigated by Local Union 890.  In fact, Local Union Business Agent Steve Garcia has been meeting with the persons involved to attempt to resolve the dispute. 

There is no evidence to support the allegation that the employers of these stewards are preparing to terminate the stewards based on their association with the protester, or for any other reason.

VI.              Other Retaliation

The protester’s allegation concerning retaliation stemming from his complaints about the Local Union officer election is not within the jurisdiction of the Election Officer, who only supervises International Convention delegate and officer elections.  

Alvis Harrington

September 19, 1995

Page 1

Based upon 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:

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:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator