April 2, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Robert Yolland
April 2, 1996
Page 1
Robert Yolland
245 Hickory Avenue
Tracy, CA 95376
Bob Gamaza, President
Teamsters Local Union 439
1531 E. Fremont Street
Stockton, CA 95201
Pat Miraglio, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 439
1531 E. Fremont Street
Stockton, CA 95201
Paul Vigil
Teamsters Local Union 439
1531 E. Fremont Street
Stockton, CA 95201
Larry Braga
Teamsters Local Union 439
1531 E. Fremont Street
Stockton, CA 95201
Robert Yolland
April 2, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-631-LU439-CSF
Gentlemen:
This 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 Robert Yolland, a member of Local Union 439. The protester alleges that Pat Miraglio, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 439, Bob Gamaza, president of Local Union 439, and Paul Vigil, a business agent of Local Union 439, campaigned on union time at California Cedar Products (“Cal Cedar”), a work site at which union members are employed. The protester also alleges that these individuals were given access to the facility which was not offered to other candidates and that Mr. Vigil traveled to and from the work site in a union-owned vehicle.
Robert Yolland
April 2, 1996
Page 1
Messrs. Miraglio and Gamaza admit that they campaigned at Cal Cedar on March 15, 1996, in the form of leafleting outside of the facility and speaking to employees on their lunch or coffee breaks. They contend, however, that they took the day off and were not on union time. In addition, they contend that Mr. Vigil was at the facility on legitimate union business and did not participate in their campaign activities.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross.
Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules states, in relevant part:
All Union officers and employees, if members, retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to openly support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions. However, such campaigning must not involve the expenditure of Union funds. Accordingly, officers and employees (and other members) of the Union may not campaign on time that is paid for by the Union. Campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, violative of this section. Further, campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not violative of this section.
The investigation indicates that Messrs. Miraglio and Gamaza were not on union time when they campaigned at Cal Cedar. According to the local union’s bookkeeper, both individuals informed him that they were taking off on March 14 and 15, 1996. The local union payroll records corroborate this statement.
In addition, no evidence has been presented to indicate that Mr. Vigil participated in the protested campaign activities. The investigation revealed that Mr. Vigil, a business agent assigned to Cal Cedar, was at the work site on March 15 to attend a grievance meeting. The protester does not claim that he saw Mr. Vigil campaigning, but rather bases his allegation on the fact that Mr. Vigil was inside the facility while Messrs. Miraglio and Gamaza were campaigning outside. Such evidence is insufficient to find a Rules violation here, especially because it is clear that Mr. Vigil had a legitimate reason for visiting the work site on
March 15, 1996.
Mr. Vigil drives a union-leased vehicle. He used this vehicle to travel to and from Cal Cedar on March 15, 1996. Since the Election Officer has determined that Mr. Vigil was not involved in campaign activities at Cal Cedar on that day, his use of this vehicle cannot constitute an improper use of union resources.
The protester alleges that Messrs. Miraglio, Gamaza and Vigil were granted access to the Cal Cedar plant to campaign. Mr. Yolland contends that this grant of access violates the Rules because other candidates are not provided equal access. The investigation revealed, however, that of these individuals, only Mr. Vigil entered the plant on March 15, 1996 to conduct union business. Messrs. Miraglio and Gamaza conducted their campaign activities outside of the facility.
Robert Yolland
April 2, 1996
Page 1
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 & 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
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator