December 14, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
David Parker
18343 Renault
La Puente, CA 91744
Randy Cammack
Bob Cannon
Teamsters Local Union 63
379 W. Valley Boulevard
Rialto, CA 92378
Re: Election Office Case No. P-232-LU63-CLA
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
David Parker, a member of Local Union 63, against Local Union 63 Secretary-Treasurer Randy Cammack and Business Agent Bob Cannon. The protester alleges that he was dismissed from employment by Roadway Express, Inc. (“Roadway”) at the direction of the charged parties, in violation of Article VIII, Sections 11(a)-(f) of the Rules. He contends these actions were taken because of his candidacy for delegate and his support for James P. Hoffa for general president.
The charged parties deny any connection with the protester’s discharge from employment. Mr. Cammack asserts that he has not declared his candidacy for delegate and has no plans to do so. Furthermore, he intends to remain neutral in the election for general president. Mr. Cannon asserts he has not expressed support for any candidate for general president. The charged parties deny any knowledge of the protester’s candidacy for delegate.
Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee investigated the protest.
David Parker
December 14, 1995
Page 1
The protester was employed until October 27, 1995 by Roadway as a casual employee. Roadway is signatory to a number of national, regional and local collective bargaining agreements covering freight employees. The contracts allow Roadway to employ a casual employee at its discretion until the employee has completed 70 eight-hour assignments in a 180-day period. At that point, the company has 30 days to decide “whether such casual meets the Employer’s hiring standards and qualifications.” Western States Area Supplemental Agreement, Article 60, Section 4(e). If the casual passes this test, he or she is placed on a “preferential hiring list” and is considered a preferred casual for future employment; if not, the company must notify the employee and the local union in writing and the employee’s “use as a casual shall be discontinued.” Id. Only casuals in the preferred category are covered by the grievance procedure.
By letter dated October 27, 1995, Roadway informed the protester that “your services as a casual employee at Roadway Express are no longer required,” citing Article 60, Section 4 of the Western States Area Supplemental Agreement. The protester claims that by
October 27, he had completed 99 days of driving assignments for Roadway and therefore qualified as a preferred casual who could not be summarily dismissed. Mr. Parker filed a grievance on November 2, 1995 protesting his discharge, which has been processed by
Local Union 63. The issue of whether Mr. Parker is a preferred casual will be determined through the grievance and arbitration process.
The protester states that one day before his dismissal, he encountered Mr. Cannon at ABF Freight System, Inc., where Mr. Parker had gone to pick up his brother. The protester was wearing a t-shirt supporting Mr. Hoffa and campaign buttons for Andy Soto and
Donna May, who were candidates for local union office. According to Mr. Parker,
Mr. Cannon asked him why he was “wearing that shit.” When Mr. Parker replied that he supported these candidates and campaigned for them, Mr. Cannon allegedly replied, “Shit happens to people who wear those things.” That evening, Mr. Parker alleges, Hector Rendon, an organizer for Local Union 63, called him at home and inquired when Mr. Parker’s proba-tionary period at Roadway would end.
On October 27, the protester states, employees in Roadway’s dispatch office observed Mr. Cannon speaking with Driver Superintendent LeRon Baptiste. According to Mr. Parker, he learned from these employees that his discharge resulted from the discussion Mr. Cannon had with Mr. Baptiste, not his work record. Mr. Parker did not provide the Election Officer with the names of any employees in the dispatch office who witnessed this conversation.
The protester also claims that while attending a local union meeting on November 4, 1995, he was informed that Mr. Cannon “had me removed from the seniority roster at Roadway Express . . . at the direction of Randy Cammack.” This information was provided to him, Mr. Parker states, “by person(s) who wish to remain anonymous.”
Mr. Cannon asserts that he never encountered the protester on October 26, 1995 at ABF Freight System and never spoke with anyone at Roadway about Mr. Parker the following day. He states that he cannot discuss union politics with members on the job.
David Parker
December 14, 1995
Page 1
Mr. Cammack insists that no representative of Local Union 63 played any part in Roadway’s decision to discharge Mr. Parker. He notes that under the collective bargaining agreement, Roadway has complete discretion to hire and fire casual employees and is not required to explain to the local union why a casual has been dismissed.
Roadway states that the protester completed his 70th shift on October 2, 1995 and the company then reviewed his work record in accordance with the contract. When management determined that Mr. Parker did not meet Roadway’s “performance efficiency” standards to become a full-time employee, the driver superintendent sent him a discharge letter on
October 27, 1995, which falls within the 30-day period set forth in Article 60, Section 4(e). Roadway’s driver superintendent denies that the local union played any part in their decision to discharge the protester.
Local Union 63 Organizer Rendon admits that he telephoned the protester at home on occasion, but denies he ever asked when Mr. Parker’s probationary period at Roadway would be over. The telephone calls, Mr. Rendon states, were usually made in response to inquiries from the protester about an employer Mr. Parker thought should be organized or other matters. According to Mr. Rendon, during these conversations he may have asked
Mr. Parker general questions about Roadway, but never about Mr. Parker’s employment status.
The Rules, in Article VIII, Section 11(f), prohibit retaliation by a local union against a Union member “for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules.” In this case, however, the investigation did not support Mr. Parker’s allegations that: (1) the local union caused his dismissal; and (2) the action was taken to retaliate against him for exercising rights guaranteed under the Rules.
Even assuming that Mr. Cannon remarked about Mr. Parker’s support of Mr. Hoffa, there is no evidence that agents of the local union suggested, requested, or induced Roadway to terminate the protester.
For the foregoing reasons, 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.
Latham and Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
David Parker
December 14, 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
Dolly M. Gee, Regional Coordinator