January 4, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Phil Young Chuck Dillon
4501 Van Brunt Blvd. Associated Wholesale Grocers
Kansas City, MO 64130 5000 Kansas Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66106
Mike Frank
Associated Wholesale Grocers Earle J. Engle
5000 Kansas Avenue Stinson, Mag & Fizzell
Kansas City, KS 66106 1201 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO XXX-XX-XXXX
Re: Election Office Case No. P-266-IBT-SCE
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 Phil Young, a candidate for International vice president. The protester alleges that his campaign representative, Keith Clavin, was denied access to the employee parking lot maintained by Associated Wholesale Grocers (“Associated”) at its Kansas City facility on December 7, 1995.
The charged party responds that Mr. Clavin asked to bring Mr. Young’s campaign trailer onto company property and was denied access for this reason. It is not disputed that Mr. Clavin sought to enter Associated’s parking lot with the trailer on December 7, 1995 and was denied access by two company representatives, Mike Frank and Chuck Dillon. Mr. Clavin claims that Mr. Frank and Mr. Dillon also refused his request to enter the parking lot in person, stating that company policy did not permit the distribution of campaign materials, handbills or petitions on Associated’s property.
Phil Young
January 4, 1996
Page 1
Associated contends that Mr. Clavin did not request access to the parking lot without the trailer and denies the statement attributed to Mr. Frank and Mr. Dillon. Mr. Clavin, the company states, would have been allowed to enter the parking lot on his own for the purpose of campaigning.
Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens investigated the protest.
Article VIII, Section 11(e) of the Rules states that a candidate for International office and his representatives “may distribute literature and/or otherwise solicit support in connection with such candidacy in any parking lot used by Union members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment . . .”
Under the Rules, the right of access to company property is limited to candidates or their representatives. The Rules do not extend the right of access to trailers, tents, or any other vehicle for campaigning. On November 21, 1995, the Election Officer distributed a document to certain employers of IBT members entitled “Advisory on Limited Right of Access to Employer Premises.” The Election Officer stated:
Article VIII, Section 11(e) of the Rules provides a limited right to campaign on the property of an IBT employer to nonemployee candidates for delegate to the International Convention and candidates for International office. The limited access rule has been designed to infringe upon any employer’s property rights only to the extent necessary to implement the goals of the Consent Decree.
(Footnote omitted).
The Advisory outlines the restrictions on campaigning set forth in Section 11(e), including the prohibition on any campaign activity “which would materially interfere with the normal business activities of the employer.”
The Election Officer’s investigation shows that Mr. Young’s campaign trailer is approximately 16 to 26 feet long and contains literature and items such as t-shirts which the protester sells to support his candidacy. The protester states that the trailer is used “at different locations to distribute literature and paraphernalia to interested Teamster members.”
Phil Young
January 4, 1996
Page 1
The protester contends that because the Rules encourage maximum participation by union members in the election process, his trailer should be permitted onto employee parking lots under Article VIII, Section 11(e). Mr. Young claims that his trailer has “created enthusiasm from Teamster members for the upcoming elections.” According to the protester, the fact that Section 11(e) does not specify what a candidate or his representatives can or cannot do when campaigning in an employee parking lot means he should not be precluded from utilizing his campaign trailer at Associated.
As set forth in the Election Officer’s Advisory, the right of access for candidates to employer property is meant to further the goal of ensuring an open and democratic election as enunciated in the Consent Decree, but is not unlimited in scope. Although some employers may permit the protester’s trailer in their employee parking lot, the rights under Article VIII, Section 11(e) infringe on employer property rights only to the extent necessary to implement the goals of the Consent Decree. To this end, the Election Officer finds that Associated’s denial of Mr. Clavin’s request to bring the protester’s trailer onto its employee parking lot did not violate the Rules.
Mr. Frank and Mr. Dillon maintain that Mr. Clavin never proposed to gain access to the parking lot alone, without the protester’s trailer. Mr. Clavin insists that he made such a request which was refused. In a letter to the Regional Coordinator dated December 19, 1995, Associated stated its willingness to “allow a reasonable number of persons access to its Kansas City, Kansas property for the purpose of distributing literature and/or otherwise soliciting support in connection with candidacy to the 1995-1996 election for International Officers of the IBT.” The letter sets forth a number of requirements for persons who seek to campaign, all of which comply with Section 11(e).[1] The evidence presented by the protester is not sufficient for the Election Officer to find that Associated violated the Rules by denying access by Mr. Clavin to its parking lot. See Webb, P-233-LU150-CCV (December 12, 1995), aff’d 95 Elec. App. - 47 (KC) (December 27, 1995). The employer has indicated to the Election Officer that it will permit such access.
Accordingly, 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:
Phil Young
January 4, 1996
Page 1
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
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
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator
[1]For example, candidates or their representatives must first report to the Security office, register, and wear an identification tag. Section 11(e) states that an employer “may require reasonable identification to assure that a person seeking access . . . is a candidate or other member entitled to such access.”