July 31, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Chris Schweitzer
July 31, 1996
Page 1
Chris Schweitzer
10843 Lurline Avenue
Chatsworth, CA 91311
Rene Medrano, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 896
1616 W. 9th Street, Room 414
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Kenneth P. Young
Wohlner, Kaplon, Phillips, Young & Barsh
15780 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1510
Encino, CA 91436
Chris Schweitzer
July 31, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-816-LU896-CLA
Gentlepersons:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Chris Schweitzer, a member of Local Union 896. Ms. Schweitzer alleges that Local Union 896 Secretary-Treasurer Rene Medrano retaliated against her for exercising her political rights, in violation of the Rules, by sending a letter to her employer challenging leave granted to her in order to campaign for Ron Carey for general president.
Mr. Medrano responds that the letter he sent to Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
Ms. Schweitzer’s employer, was intended as a formal protest to the employer’s refusal to grant leave for another employee. He contends that the letter was “inartfully drafted” because, as it is worded, it appears to be a protest of the employer’s granting Ms. Schweitzer’s leave. He states that he sent another letter to the employer in order to clarify his intentions.
Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee investigated the protest.
Chris Schweitzer
July 31, 1996
Page 1
In early June 1996, the protester requested a leave of absence for two periods in June and July 1996 in order to campaign for the Ron Carey slate and to attend the International Convention. This request was approved by the employer under Section 7(c) of the relevant collective bargaining agreement in which the employer agrees to release employees for union business. On June 5, 1996, Mr. Medrano sent a letter to Bob Warner, the employer’s human resources manager, in which he stated:
This Local Union, as of this date, has not received authorization nor notification from the IBT to grant a leave of absence for any member for campaign reasons with the exception of the IBT Convention July 13 thru 20.
We are protesting the granted leave under Section 7(c) of the current contract that provides that only leaves of absence may be requested by the Union or any other Local.
It has never been the practice of the Van Nuys plan [sic] to recognize request for leaves of absence for union business from any other source other than local 896 or any other Local.
In the past, the company consistently refused personal leaves of absence to members of Local 896 with more credence than the leave that has been granted to a member of this Local starting June 3. (see attached)
In the interest of fair representation this local demands an explanation for the Company’s action.
The attachment which accompanied the letter identified the recipient of the protested leave as Christine Schweitzer.
On June 17, Mr. Medrano sent another letter to Mr. Warner, in which he stated:
By the Company recognizing a personal leave for a member of Local 896 that is not covered under Section 7(c) of the current collective bargaining Agreement, Local 896 recognizes your new implementation for personal leaves regardless of reason even those outside of 7(c) of the current Agreement. Therefore, you have set a precedent under your new policy, that all members of Local 896 shall now be granted personal leave regardless of whether they meet the criteria of 7(c) of the current Agreement.
To avoid discriminatory charges, Local 896 requests a review of all personal leaves of absence that have been denied.
Chris Schweitzer
July 31, 1996
Page 1
On July 3, 1996, Mr. Medrano sent another letter to Mr. Warner in which he states that while the local union protests the employer’s interpretation of Section 7(c) of the collective bargaining agreement, it did not wish to protest the “leaves recently granted pursuant to [the employer’s] interpretation of Section 7(c).”
The employer and the local union disagree as to the application of Section 7(c).
Mr. Medrano argues that requests from members who wish leaves in order to campaign should be considered pursuant to Section 7(b) which establishes an unpaid leave policy for medical and family emergencies as well for other reasons subject to employer approval. Leaves under 7(c) should only be granted through a request by the union. The employer considers union campaigning to be union work, and considers requests for leave to participate in campaign activities pursuant to Section 7(c).
Ms. Schweitzer’s leave was not rescinded as a result of Mr. Medrano’s letter, nor has any disciplinary or punitive action been taken against her by her employer.
Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules prohibits any retaliation against anyone by the union or its agents for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules.[1] To demonstrate retaliation, a protester must show that conduct protected by the Rules was a motivating factor in the adverse decision or conduct in dispute. The Election Officer will not find retaliation if she concludes that the union officer or entity would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protester’s protected conduct. Gilmartin, P-032-LU245-PNJ (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 75 (KC) (February 6, 1996). See Leal, P-051- IBT-CSF (October 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 30 (KC) (October 30, 1995).
The parties involved in this protest were rival candidates in local union officer and delegate elections and have a history of animosity. The Election Officer acknowledges that heightened scrutiny of the actions and motive of the relevant parties is in order because of the intense animosity and fierce political competition that exists between them.
Chris Schweitzer
July 31, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Medrano contends that he did not intend to protest Ms. Schweitzer’s leave. He states that he believed that she had been granted leave under Article 7(b) and was angry because an individual who, in Mr. Medrano’s opinion, had better grounds to be granted leave had been denied a leave-of-absence under Section 7(b). Mr. Medrano’s contention is contradicted by the language of his communication. In the protested letter, he clearly states, “We are protesting the granted leave under Section 7(c) of the current contract . . .” Thus, Mr. Medrano knew at the time he wrote the letter that Ms. Schweitzer had not been granted Article 7(b) leave. The language in the letter indicates that Mr. Medrano’s principal objection to the leave was that it was not authorized by the local union and is not, as a result, union business.
As such, Mr. Medrano’s letter constitutes an allegation of a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. The question is whether Mr. Medrano would have taken this action regardless of the candidate whom Ms. Schweitzer was supporting.
The evidence surrounding this disupte indicates that Mr. Medrano was acting in furtherance of legitimate contract enforcement concerns. The employer and the protester, a former Local Union 896 secretary-treasurer, both claim that union campaign work has always been considered union business. The evidence presented by Ms. Schweitzer, however, demonstrates that employees fill out a form for a medical or personal leave of absence stating that the leave is “to campaign.” Other than the employer’s statement that such requests were treated by it as union leave, there is no documentary evidence showing this. While the investigation revealed that Mr. Medrano was aware that members wishing to campaign could obtain leave (he received leave himself), there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Medrano was aware that these leaves were treated by the Company as “union business” under Section 7(c) until this incident arose. Furthermore, the Election Officer notes that a local union officer would be reasonable in displaying concern for a system of union-based leaves that were not under the control of the local or International unions.
The Election Officer finds that the action taken by Mr. Medrano was not in retaliation for Ms. Schweitzer’s support of a particular candidate. The letter he wrote constitutes a legitimate complaint by a local union principal officer who reasonably believed that the employer was violating the collective bargaining agreement. As such, it does not violate 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
Chris Schweitzer
July 31, 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, D.C. 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
Dolly M. Gee, Regional Coordinator
[1]Article VIII, Section 11(f) states:
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.