April 10, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Clinton Fluker & Richard Lopez
April 10, 1996
Page 1
Clinton Fluker
1440 W. 123rd Street
Chicago, IL 60643
Richard Lopez
606 N. 6th Avenue
Maywood, IL 60153
Jerry Broaddus
7500 Elmhurst Road, Lot 46
Des Plaines, IL 60018
The Hoffa/Hogan Slate
c/o James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Eddie Kornegay, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 743
300 S. Ashland Avenue
Chicago, IL 60607
Clinton Fluker & Richard Lopez
April 10, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-672-LU743-SCE, P-676-LU743-SCE
Gentlemen:
Related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Clinton Fluker and Richard Lopez, members of Local Union 743. In P-672-LU743-SCE, Mr. Fluker alleges that Richard Lopez, Jerry Broaddus and Rex Broaddus disrupted a union meeting to campaign, in violation of the Rules. In P-676-LU743-SCE, Mr. Lopez alleges that Mr. Fluker campaigned at this meeting on union time and the members addressed were on work time, in violation of the Rules. Because these protests arise from the same incident, they have been consolidated by the Election Officer.
The protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
Clinton Fluker & Richard Lopez
April 10, 1996
Page 1
The investigation revealed that on March 25, 1996, Mr. Fluker, a business agent for Local Union 743, convened a meeting of members working at Cooper Lamp Company (“Cooper”). The meeting was held during lunch hour in the employee lunchroom. Immediately prior to the meeting, Mr. Fluker distributed three or four Movement Towards Members (“MTM”) slate buttons to members in the room. He then addressed the assembled workers on the need for two more stewards at the work site. During the meeting, Mr. Fluker wore an MTM slate campaign button.
Just prior to the meeting, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Messrs. Lopez, Broaddus and Broaddus arrived at the work site and were let in by Jim Galloway, the current shop steward at Cooper. Mr. Galloway was not authorized by his employer to do this. Messrs. Lopez, Broaddus and Broaddus do not work at Cooper, nor do they have any legitimate union business that would require them to be at Cooper.
These individuals and Mr. Galloway went to the lunchroom where Mr. Lopez listened at the door to Mr. Fluker’s presentation. At one point, Mr. Lopez entered the room and disrupted the meeting. Messrs. Fluker and Lopez exchanged angry words and the meeting was adjourned. Mr. Fluker went upstairs while Mr. Lopez campaigned in the lunchroom.
Mr. Lopez states that he disrupted the meeting because he believed that Mr. Fluker was attempting to use the new stewards issue to replace Mr. Galloway, who opposes Mr. Fluker and the MTM slate in the delegate election. Mr. Lopez also states that he believes that
Mr. Fluker went upstairs after the meeting to campaign. There is no evidence that Mr. Fluker campaigned after the lunchroom meeting was adjourned.
Mr. Lopez admits he disrupted the meeting for a political purpose. He defends this action by claiming that he was protecting Mr. Galloway’s political rights. He also admits to campaigning on the premises.
Article VIII, Section 11(a) states, in relevant part:
No candidate or member may campaign during his/her working hours. Campaigning incidental to work 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.
In addition, the Advisory on Wearing of Campaign Buttons and Other Emblems (“Advisory”), issued by the Election Officer on September 20, 1995, states that the Rules protect the right of IBT members, including union officers and employees, “to wear campaign emblems on buttons, t-shirts or hats while working.” (Citations omitted.) In regard to union officers, the Advisory specifies that they may not wear such campaign emblems when representing the union before an unrelated third party, such as an employer.
Clinton Fluker & Richard Lopez
April 10, 1996
Page 1
In the present case, however, Mr. Fluker was not representing the union to or before a third party. He conducted a union meeting and addressed members of the local union only. There is no evidence that suggests that any management representative would conclude that Local Union 743 or any other subordinate body supported the MTM slate because Mr. Fluker wore campaign material. See Lee, P-435-LU299-MGN (February 29, 1996).
In addition, Mr. Fluker’s distribution of a few campaign buttons prior to the union meeting was campaigning incidental to legitimate union business and does not violate the Rules. As stated above, Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules prohibits union officers from campaigning “on time that is paid for by the Union.” The provision further states that “campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, violative of this section.”
While a union staff person may not campaign during work hours, the Rules permit campaign activity that is incidental to work. In Newhouse, P-253-LU435-RMT (January 4, 1996), the Election Officer determined that a local union staff person who asked a member to pass around a candidate petition while on union time did not violate the Rules. Similarly, short campaign-related conversations between business agents and stewards which occur prior to commencement of contract negotiations do not violate the Rules. Dillon, P-467-
LU284-CLE (March 4, 1991).
The conduct of the individuals protested by Mr. Fluker is not a per se violation of the Rules. The Election Officer is disturbed, however, because of the potential such disruptive behavior has to engender Rules violations and jeopardize the election process. The Rules exist to give members recourse to a remedial authority when they feel their political rights have been violated. The actions of Mr. Lopez in this case could easily have led to a serious disruption in the work environment at Cooper. In the future, Mr. Lopez, the acknowledged leader in the incident, is advised to pursue a remedy through the Election Officer’s protest procedure.
Accordingly, these protests are 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
Clinton Fluker & Richard Lopez
April 10, 1996
Page 1
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
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator