Protest Decisions

              May 1, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

George Saavedra

May 1, 1996

Page 1

George Saavedra

845 Thetford Place

Fairfield, CA 94533

Ron Powell

United Parcel Service

5000 Cordelia Road

Cordelia, CA 94585

Martin Wald

Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis

1600 Market Street, Suite 3600

Philadelphia, PA 19103

George Saavedra

May 1, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-509-LU490-CSF

Gentlemen:

George Saavedra, a member of Local Union 490 and an employee of United Parcel Service (“UPS” or “the employer”) in Cordelia, California, filed a pre-election protest, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”), alleging that his supervisor, Ron Powell, violated his rights under the Rules by ordering him to remove a T-shirt bearing campaign insignia promoting the Ron Carey slate.  The Election Officer deferred this protest for consideration post-election, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules.

The protest was assigned to Adjunct Regional Coordinator Victoria Chin.

There is no dispute that on February 19, 1996 Mr. Powell ordered the protester to remove a t-shirt while working as a relief clerk on the 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift.  The facility does not regularly open to the public until 12:30 p.m.  The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(a) and (b) provide that all union members have the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right “to openly support or oppose any candidate [and] to aid or campaign for any candidate.”  While members do not have a right to campaign on work time, whether paid by the union or another employer, campaigning incidental to work (or on paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off) or union business does not violate the Rules.

George Saavedra

May 1, 1996

Page 1

The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(d) also provide that “no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fundraising events or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises.”  Among the rights so protected by the Rules, is the right of IBT members to wear campaign emblems on buttons, T-shirts or hats while working.  See Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793 (1945); Malta Constr. Co., 276 N.L.R.B. 1494 (1985), enforced, 806 F. 2d 1009 (11th Cir. 1986).

However, a member’s right to wear campaign emblems, including buttons, while on work time may be circumscribed by the member’s employer or the public at large.  The employer may prevent the wearing of campaign emblems where the prohibition is necessary to maintain production and discipline, safety or to prevent alienation of customers.

The protester contended, and the employer disputed, that in his position as a relief clerk on the 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift, the protester’s job did not require contact with the public and, therefore, his right to wear a campaign T-shirt may not be restricted.  Pursuant to the grievance-arbitration procedure in the collective bargaining agreement covering the employer and Local Union 490, the union filed a grievance protesting the employer’s refusal to permit the protester to wear campaign clothing, even though he did not meet the public in the course of his job.[1]  The grievance was sustained by the joint union and employer panel and the employer was instructed to comply with the language of the collective bargaining agreement.

In discussions with the Election Officer, UPS has agreed that employees who do not meet the public are permitted to display campaign emblems while at work.  Specifically, UPS has agreed that as long as the protester does not meet with the public, he may wear campaign t-shirts.

Under these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes that further processing of this protest is unwarranted.  The protester’s complaint, as stated in this protest, has been addressed, and the relief requested has been achieved.  Accordingly, this protest is now RESOLVED.

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:

George Saavedra

May 1, 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 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 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

Victoria Chin, Adjunct Regional Coordinator