Protest Decisions

              May 9, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Nancy DeLong

May 9, 1996

Page 1

Nancy DeLong

834 Golf Drive #101

Pontiac, MI 48341

Anthony Cordova, President

Teamsters Local Union 377

1223 Teamsters Drive

Youngstown, OH 44502

Jerry Morrison, Recording Secretary

Teamsters Local Union 377

1223 Teamsters Drive

Youngstown, OH 44502

Jim Morgan

Teamsters Local Union 377

1223 Teamsters Drive

Youngstown, OH 44502

Nancy DeLong

May 9, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case Nos.              P-695-LU377-CLE, P-696-LU377-CLE

Gentlepersons:

Nancy DeLong, a member of Local Union 414, filed pre-election protests pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”), arising from events that occurred while she was performing consulting work for Local Union 377.  In P-696-LU377-CLE, Ms. DeLong alleges that on March 30, 1996, Local Union 377 President Tony Cordova prevented her from entering the local union hall to conduct a meeting with members, “because I was wearing a Hoffa/Hogan T-shirt.”  In P-695-LU377-CLE, Ms. DeLong alleges that while she was attending a county sheriff fundraiser that evening, “I was subjected to vulgar, verbal abuse and threatened with physical harm by Jim Morgan, organizer/ union representative from Local 377, and Jerry Morrison, recording secretary of Local 377, because of my support of Hoffa and Hogan in the upcoming Teamster election.”  The Election Officer consolidated these protests for consideration.

These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Joyce Goldstein.

Ms. DeLong is an IBT member who performs time and production studies for IBT local unions.  It is undisputed that Local Union 377 hired Ms. DeLong as an independent contractor to do a time study audit of production standards at Tamarkin, a grocery warehouse.

Nancy DeLong

May 9, 1996

Page 1

1.  Allegation of Denial of Entry to the Local Union Hall

On March 30, 1996, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Ms. DeLong was standing outside the Local Union 377 hall, preparing to hold a meeting for 30 to 50 Tamarkin employees.  The meeting had been scheduled by Local Union 377 Business Agent Bob Bernat.  Ms. DeLong was wearing a Hoffa/Hogan t-shirt.

Mr. Cordova saw Ms. DeLong outside the hall.  He questioned why she was there and objected to her wearing the campaign t-shirt.  He stated:

I told her that I believed that it would be inappropriate to conduct an official union meeting on union property while wearing campaign attire.  I was concerned because I had already received complaints from Local 377 members that Sister DeLong conducted the Tamarkin warehouse audit wearing the same attire and had passed out Hoffa/Hogan buttons during the audit . . .[1]

Ms. DeLong contends that Mr. Cordova then barred her from the local union hall.  When interviewed by the Regional Coordinator, Mr. Cordova admitted that he would not allow Ms. DeLong to enter the hall as long as her Hoffa/Hoffa slogan was visible.  Thus, the Election Officer finds on the basis of this record that Mr. Cordova excluded Ms. DeLong from the local union hall on the basis of her wearing a campaign emblem.  Ms. DeLong declined to cover the Hoffa/Hogan slogan and conducted the meeting from the back of a pick-up truck outside the hall.

As a general matter, the principle officers of a local union have authority to control access to the local union hall.  Ms. DeLong’s only connection to Local Union 377 was her contract to perform the time-study audit at Tamarkin.  She is not a member of Local

Union 377.  Thus, Mr. Cordova had the general right to monitor the terms and conditions of her access to the hall, pursuant to her contractual relationship, including the right to exclude her under appropriate circumstances.

Ms. DeLong’s status as a member of Local Union 414 does not change that analysis.  Her right as a member of that local union to enter that local union’s hall does not transfer to other halls.  This principle underlies Article VIII, Section 5(a)(2) of the Rules, which provides that “candidates who are not members of the Local Union need not be granted access to any of the Local Union’s meetings unless another nonmember candidate is granted such access.” 

Ms. DeLong’s membership in Local Union 414 did not give her the right to enter the Local Union 377 hall.

Nancy DeLong

May 9, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer recognized in her Advisory on Wearing of Campaign Buttons and Other Emblems (“Advisory”), issued on September 20, 1995, that members have a general right to wear campaign emblems.  It is a personal right of political expression arising from membership.

In this matter, Ms. DeLong’s presence at Local Union 377 did not arise from her membership.  She was retained by the local union solely to perform the time-study audit at Tamarkin.  When she conducted her meeting on March 30, her role was not shaped by or related to member rights and responsibilities.  Rather, her role at the local union meeting emanated from her agency relationship.  Thus, her presence did not implicate the membership rights, such as the right to wear campaign emblems, that she would otherwise be able to exercise in situations where she was present and acting as a member.  In these circumstances, it did not violate the Rules for Mr. Cordova to object to her wearing a campaign t-shirt while being paid as an independent contractor by the local union.

2.  Allegation of Harassment and Intimidation

Ms. DeLong states that after the episode with Mr. Cordova she was upset and “did not feel safe.”  Mr. Bernat offered to Ms. DeLong that she could spend the evening with him and his family.  There was a fund raiser that evening for the county sheriff and Ms. DeLong attended with Mr. Bernat, his wife, his brother-in-law Larry Rotunna and Mr. Rotunna’s wife.  They sat at a table with a Hoffa/Hogan tent sign.  Ms. DeLong wore a Hoffa/Hogan jacket and hung it on the back of her chair.

Also attending the fund raiser were Local Union 377 Secretary-Treasurer Jerry Morrison and organizer Jim Morgan.  They sat across the room at a table marked for the local union.  It is undisputed that at approximately 9:00 p.m., Messrs. Morrison and Morgan approached Mr. Bernat’s table.

According to Ms. DeLong, she was talking to Mr. Rotunna at the time.  Mr. Rotunna thought that Ms. DeLong was acquainted with Messrs. Morrison and Morgan and turned away to talk to his wife.  Ms. DeLong asserts that Messrs. Morrison and Morgan introduced themselves and told her that they wanted her to leave, stating that the local union was not paying her to attend the fundraiser and campaign.  She states that she responded by saying that she was enjoying the evening, not campaigning.  Mr. Rotunna contends that at some point he heard profanity and loud voices and turned back toward Ms. DeLong in time to see

Mr. Morrison “lunge” at her or fake hitting her.  Mr. Rotunna states that he then moved

Ms. DeLong behind himself and told Messrs. Morrison and Morgan to leave, which they did.

Messrs. Morrison and Morgan respond that they thought Ms. DeLong should have been working and did not want members’ dues money spent on campaigning.  According to their version of events, after they introduced themselves, Ms. DeLong stepped behind someone else.  They contend that when Ms. DeLong denied campaigning, Mr. Morgan challenged her on the basis of her jacket and/or the table marker.  They state that the person in front of Ms. DeLong then said that Ms. DeLong did not have to answer their questions, and that they walked away.  They deny lunging at or touching Ms. DeLong.

Nancy DeLong

May 9, 1996

Page 1

Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules provides:

Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.

Messrs. Morrison and Morgan are large persons.  The Election Officer finds that

Ms. DeLong may have had a predisposition to feel threatened by their approach, in view of events at the local union earlier in the day.  However, the Election Officer finds that Messrs. Morrison and Morgan are credible and that the alleged physical intimidation was unlikely to occur at an event attended by sheriff’s deputies and other law enforcement personnel without any of those persons being asked to take action.  On the basis of the record in this matter, the Election Officer finds that Messrs. Morrison and Morgan did not engage in intimidation and, therefore, did not violate the Rules.

For the reasons stated above, the 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

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

Joyce Goldstein, Regional Coordinator