Protest Decisions

              October 12, 1995

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Alvis Harrington

October 12, 1995

Page 1

Alvis Harrington

October 12, 1995

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-166-LU890-CSF

Gentlemen:

A 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 Alvis Harrington, a member of Local Union 890, alleging that Local Union 890 officials and representatives of Gilroy Foods conspired to deny him access to company facilities and its employees because of his union activities.  The protester was a candidate for delegate to the IBT’s 1996 convention.  The protest letter was dated September 16, 1995.  The ballots for the election of delegates were mailed on September 7, 1995, thus the protest was not filed until after the mail-ballot process had begun.  The ballots were counted on September 28, 1995.  The Election Officer exercised the authority reserved to her under Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules and elected to treat this protest as a post-election protest.

Mr. Harrington claimed that he and other members of the “PAC 95 Slate” were being unlawfully discriminated against by the company and the local union.  According to the protestor and Anthony Vanella, a member of Local 890 who is also a candidate for delegate, the company issued a memorandum accompanied by a photograph of Mr. Harrington stating that

Mr. Harrington was to be barred from access to the plant.  Should Mr. Harrington gain access, the memorandum allegedly stated, he was to be removed from the company’s premises.

Alvis Harrington

October 12, 1995

Page 1

Local Union 890 officers denied having played any role in the company’s issuance of the memorandum in question.  Penny Reath, Human Resources Manager for Gilroy Foods, confirmed the existence of a company memorandum to security personnel instructing them to more vigilantly check identification and to restrict access only to authorized union personnel.  She denied that Local Union 890 played any role in the issuance of the memorandum.  She also denied that the memorandum targeted Mr. Harrington or any other member seeking to exercise their campaign rights under the Rules.  Instead, according to Ms. Reath, the memorandum was motivated by the failure of Local 890 agents to follow company sign-in procedures when they entered the plant.

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross.

Article VIII, Section 11(d) of the Rules states, in relevant part:

[N]o restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fund-raising events or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises.  Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a nondiscriminatory basis.

The Election Officer’s investigation uncovered no evidence demonstrating that

Mr. Harrington or any other IBT member’s campaign access rights were denied by Gilroy Foods or Local Union 890 officials.  In fact, Mr. Harrington indicated to the investigator that subsequent to filing the protest he was permitted to enter the Gilroy plant and to speak with employees.  Moreover, by letter dated September 27, 1995 to Regional Coordinator Ross,

Ms. Reath has agreed that Gilroy Foods “will grant Mr. Harrington reasonable access to the parking lot solely for the purpose of campaigning and solely from now until the time of the election.”  There is no evidence the company produced a memorandum, alone or in tandem with Local Union 890 officials, targeting Mr. Harrington for future discrimination.  Thus, no Rules violation occurred.

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Harrington’s 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.

Latham & Watkins

885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

New York, NY 10022

Fax (212) 751-4864

Alvis Harrington

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

Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator