May 23, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Erwin Rud & Erik Jensen
May 23, 1996
Page 1
Erwin Rud
P.O. Box 46
Elgin, MN 55932
Erik Jensen
4343 11th Avenue, S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Tom Wallace
c/o Sue Mauren Unity Slate
1901 S. 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55454
Janet Straub
c/o Sue Mauren Unity Slate
1901 S. 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55454
Erwin Rud & Erik Jensen
May 23, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-766-LU320-NCE
Gentlepersons:
Erwin Rud and Erik Jensen, members of Local Union 320 and candidates for delegate on the Ron Carey Rank and File slate, 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”). The protesters allege that Janet Straub and Tom Wallace campaigned for the Sue Mauren Unity (“Unity”) slate at the Rochester Public School when Mr. Wallace was on work time, in violation of Article VII, Section 11(a) of the Rules. The protesters also claim that, Ms. Straub, an employee of the local union, campaigned on union time, in violation of Article VIII, Section 11(b). Finally, the protesters allege that the campaigning involved discussions with school district employees on these members’ work time and that the leafleting which occurred violated the school district’s no-solicitation rule.
Mr. Wallace and Ms. Straub respond that the campaigning occurred while they were on compensation time and vacation time, respectively. They further respond that they had permission to campaign on school district premises and that their campaign discussions with employees were brief and did not disrupt the employees’ work.
Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn investigated the protest.
Erwin Rud & Erik Jensen
May 23, 1996
Page 1
The protested campaigning took place on May 9. The employee witnesses identified by the protesters report that, while working, they were approached by Mr. Wallace and
Ms. Straub and asked to vote for Ms. Straub, a candidate for delegate on the Unity slate. None of the conversations lasted more than a minute or two. One witness was handed a leaflet for the Unity slate. Copies of literature for that slate were also posted on a personal bulletin board in a locked office and in an employee break room at one school.
Ms. Straub, who is an employee of the local union, reports that she was campaigning on vacation time. Mr. Wallace states that he was campaigning on comp time, with the permission of his supervisor, Roy Horn. Mr. Horn confirms that he permitted Mr Wallace to campaign, but required him to take time off for campaigning. Mr. Horn further states that Mr. Wallace signed out from his job before campaigning.
Mr. Wallace states that he knows of no rules prohibiting the distribution of literature in school buildings and that, in fact, literature of various kinds--political, commercial, recreational--is distributed frequently. Mr. Horn confirms that there are no rules forbidding brief discussions with employees inside of the school buildings as long as there is no disruption of work. Mr. Horn reports that he told Mr. Wallace that campaign discussions should not interfere with employees’ work.
At the suggestion of the Regional Coordinator, Mr. Rud asked Mr. Horn if he could campaign at the schools and was told that he could do so on his own time, as long as the discussions did not interfere with the work of the employees.
The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11 explicitly permits both members and local union employees to campaign, as long as they are not on time that is paid for by the union or on working time. The Election Officer concludes that Ms. Straub and Mr. Rud were not campaigning on union or working time.
At Article VIII, Section 11(d), the Rules provides:
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. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available on a nondiscriminatory basis.
The Election Officer has previously stated that “[i]f an employer chooses to allow campaigning on their premises, it may do so as long as equal access is provided to all candidates pursuant to Article VIII, Section 11(d).” Burrows, P-118-LU70-CLA
(September 13, 1995), aff’d 95 - Elec. App. - 16 (KC) (September 30, 1995); Lopez, P-667-LU743-CHI (April 8, 1996) (“The non-discrimination provision requires equal treatment only of those members who have a preexisting right to be there.”).
Erwin Rud & Erik Jensen
May 23, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer finds that the school district has permitted non-employees into its buildings to campaign as long as the discussions with employees do not disrupt employees’ work. Thus, there was a pre-existing right for Ms. Straub and Mr. Wallace to campaign inside the facility. Moreover, the school district has agreed that Mr. Rud could engage in similar campaign activities at the schools. In these circumstances, the activities of Ms. Straub and Mr. Wallace do not constitute a violation of the Rules.
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:
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
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator