Protest Decisions

              July 31, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Ken Mee & Gary Guillory

July 31, 1996

Page 1

Ken Mee

42356 Greenbrier Park Drive

Fremont, CA 94538

Gary Guillory

1226 St. Andrew Court

Ontario, CA 91761

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098

Ralph Snow, Warehouse Director

Vons Grocery Co.

4300 Shirley Avenue

El Monte, CA 91731

Ken Mee & Gary Guillory

July 31, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No.              P-819-LU630-CLA, P-823-LU630-CLA

Gentlemen:

Ken Mee, a member of Local Union 287 and a candidate for re-election as International vice president, and Gary Guillory, a member of Local Union 630, filed pre-election protests pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  In P-819-LU630-CLA, Mr. Mee charges that Vons Grocery Co. (“Vons”), Local Union 630 Shop Steward Gary Guillory and Local Union 630 denied him and another campaigner the right to campaign at the Vons grocery warehouse in El Monte, California while affording such rights to James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, and his supporters.  In P-823-LU630-CLA, Mr. Guillory contends that he was physically threatened by Mr. Mee when he attempted to ascertain whether Mr. Mee had authorization to campaign inside the Vons grocery warehouse.

Ken Mee & Gary Guillory

July 31, 1996

Page 1

Responding to Mr. Mee’s charges, Mr. Guillory states that he was merely trying to find out whether Mr. Mee was authorized to be on the premises and denies that he interfered with Mr. Mee’s right to campaign.  Vons responds that it attempted to accommodate Mr. Mee after the director of the warehouse confirmed that Mr. Mee was authorized to campaign inside the facility.  Vons further states that its does not permit candidates to campaign inside its facilities, but determined to permit Mr. Mee to do so after it learned that Mr. Hoffa had done so on a single occasion in the past.  Local Union 630 denies that it is involved in any activity to deprive candidates or members of their right to campaign.

These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee.  Because these protests involve the same events, they were consolidated for decision by the Election Officer.

On June 21, 1996, Mr. Mee and Jim Newman, a member of Local Union 952, went to the Vons grocery warehouse to campaign for Mr. Carey.  Mr. Mee asked the security guard to let him onto the premises and identified himself as a campaigner for Carey.  He asked for and received directions from the security guard to the drivers’ room and the warehouse break room.  Mr. Mee proceeded to the break room inside the warehouse where he left some campaign literature supporting Mr. Carey.  While Mr. Mee was in the break room,

Mr. Guillory came into the room and asked Mr. Mee whether he had the authority to be there.  Mr. Mee replied that he had such authority.  Mr. Guillory then gathered some of the campaign literature Mr. Mee had placed on a table and stated that he was going to see a supervisor and to call his local union about Mr. Mee’s presence in the break room. 

At this point, Mr. Mee became agitated.  Mr. Guillory states that Mr. Mee asked him who he supports in the International election and Mr. Guillory replied, “I’m for Hoffa.” 

Mr. Mee denies asking Mr. Guillory about his political allegiances.  Nevertheless, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Mee was aware that the atmosphere was not politically supportive of Mr. Carey due to the lack of reception by the employees and the Hoffa materials on the union bulletin boards.

Mr. Guillory then got onto his electric pallet jack and drove away.  Mr. Mee angrily ran behind him.  Mr. Guillory asked Mr. Mee to stop following him.  Then Mr. Mee reached out at Mr. Guillory with his right arm, but did not make any physical contact.  Mr. Guillory then swung the jack around and confronted Mr. Mee. Mr. Mee hollered at Mr. Guillory and reached at him with his right arm again, at which point Mr. Guillory reached down with one arm in a manner to protect himself.  There was no physical contact.  At this point, another employee, Carl Reich, placed himself between Messrs. Mee and Guillory and said, “Break it up.  We all have to work here.  Someone’s going to get in trouble.”[1]  Mr. Reich then told

Mr. Guillory to leave and stayed to talk with Mr. Mee.  Mr. Mee denies that he lunged at

Mr. Guillory or threatened any violence. Mr. Mee admits, however, that he felt Mr. Guillory was acting beyond his role as a union steward by reporting his campaign activities at the facility to Vons management.

Mr. Guillory then reported Mr. Mee’s presence to Ralph Snow, director of the warehouse.  Messrs. Snow and Guillory then went to the dock area where he observed

Ken Mee & Gary Guillory

July 31, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Mee talking to the employees who were passing by.  Mr. Snow approached Mr. Mee and asked him to leave the premises.  Mr. Snow explained to Mr. Mee that he had to get permission to enter the premises from Vons’ labor relations department.  Mr. Snow then left Mr. Mee with Mr. Guillory and returned to his office.  Mr. Snow telephoned Bruce Thompson, Vons’ president of labor relations and reported Mr. Mee’s presence on the premises to Mr. Thompson.  Mr. Snow also mentioned that Mr. Hoffa and some of his supporters had recently entered the warehouse and campaigned in the break room. 

Mr. Thompson advised Mr. Snow that since Mr. Hoffa had been permitted to campaign in the break room, Mr. Mee should be permitted “equal time.” 

After he spoke to Mr. Thompson, Mr. Snow went to advise Mr. Mee of

Mr. Thompson’s decision to authorize him to campaign, but Mr. Mee had left the premises.

While Mr. Snow was speaking to Mr. Thompson, Mr. Mee and Mr. Guillory engaged in a conversation about the relative merits of the candidates for general president.  Mr. Mee gave Mr. Guillory some information about Mr. Carey.  Mr. Mee and Mr. Guillory shook hands.  Mr. Mee also gave Mr. Guillory his business card and the two men hugged before

Mr. Mee left the premises.

Local Union 630 Business Agent Paul Kinney credibly stated that the local union does not impede any candidates access to the Vons facility as long as they obtain proper authorization from Vons’ labor relations department.  Mr. Kinney states that R.V. Durham also campaigned inside the Vons’ facility in the 1991 election.  As for Vons, Mr. Thompson states that it is only aware of the one incident involving Mr. Hoffa in the current election cycle and is unaware of any candidates in 1991.  If other candidates came onto the premises,

Mr. Thompson states that it was without Vons’ knowledge and they were not authorized to do so.

The Rules generally do not give candidates or members the right to campaign on employer premises (other than in the parking lot), unless there is a pre-existing right.  Thus, Article VIII, Section 11(d) states:

[N]o restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature,  . . . or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises.  Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a nondiscriminatory basis.

The Election Officer has repeatedly 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); Rud, P-766-LU320-NCE (July 30, 1996).  Vons permitted Mr. Hoffa and his supporters to campaign inside its break room; therefore, it should provide equal access to Mr. Mee.  At the time

Ken Mee & Gary Guillory

July 31, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Mee was present at the facility, Mr. Snow, after speaking with Mr. Thompson, attempted to provide Mr. Mee with an opportunity to campaign for Mr. Carey.  Mr. Mee, however, had left the premises after being advised to do so by Mr. Snow.  Therefore, Mr. Mee was not provided with equal access and the Rules have been violated.

A second issue raised in this protest is whether Vons, rather than permitting campaigning by Mr. Hoffa on a single occasion, has in fact created a pre-existing right to campaign.  On this issue, the Election Officer credits the statements by Mr. Thompson, that any campaigning by Mr. Durham or other candidates during the 1991 election or a 1995 visit by Mr. Hoffa were without the knowledge or authorization of Vons.  Although the Election Officer finds that Mr. Mee was entitled to access based upon the recent 1996 appearance by Mr. Hoffa, she does not find that a pre-existing right to campaign in the Vons break room has been created such that all candidates may have access for campaigning during the ensuing International election period.  See Pape, P-366-LU390-SEC, et seq. (February 15, 1996).

As to Mr. Mee’s allegations against Mr. Guillory, the Election Officer finds that

Mr. Guillory did not retaliate against Mr. Mee by seeking information from Vons as to

Mr. Mee’s authority to be on the premises.  Finally, there is no evidence to support

Mr. Mee’s allegations that Local Union 630 was ever consulted about Vons’ actions or has in any way acted in concert with Vons to prevent the campaign rights of Mr. Mee or others under Article VIII, Section 11 of the Rules.

In his protest, Mr. Guillory states that he was physically threatened by Mr. Mee.  The Election Officer credits the statements of Mr. Guillory that after Mr. Mee learned

Mr. Guillory supported Mr. Hoffa, he angrily ran after his pallet jack and reached towards him.  In turn, Mr. Guillory turned his jack around and confronted Mr. Mee.  Both parties were angry.  The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(f) prohibit retaliation and the threat of retaliation by any person against a member for the exercise of any guaranteed election right.  Among these rights is the freedom to engage in political and campaign activities free from any threat of violence.  Lopez, P-456-LU743-CHI (April 10, 1996) (finding “I’ll kill you” to violate the Rules, in light of ongoing animosity between the parties).  Kelly, P-600-

LU705-CHI, et seq. (March 27, 1991) (finding an aggressive threat to “kick their ass” made in a menacing manner to be harassment, in violation of the Rules).  Smith, P-600-LU150-CSF (April 30, 1996) (finding that the Rules were violated by the threat to remove a member from the premises “in a body bag”).

Here, the Election Officer finds that there was an angry confrontation between

Mr. Guillory and Mr. Mee which flared in the heat of the moment.  Shortly thereafter, the parties spoke amicably and shook hands.  Under these circumstances, the Election Officer does not find that the Rules were violated.

Accordingly, the protest in P-819-LU630-CLA is GRANTED as to Vons Grocery Co. and DENIED in all other respects.  The protest in P-823-LU630-CLA is DENIED.

Ken Mee & Gary Guillory

July 31, 1996

Page 1

When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.”  Article XIV, Section 4.  In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process. 

The Election Officer orders that within seven (7) days of this decision, Vons will advise Mr. Mee, in writing, of his right to campaign on one occasion in its break room.  The letter shall advise Mr. Mee of the amount of time spent by Mr. Hoffa and his supporters in the break room and afford Mr. Mee (or another supporter of Mr. Carey) equal access to campaign for Mr. Carey.  Within two (2) days of such notification to Mr. Mee, Vons will file an affidavit with the Election Officer advising her of its compliance with her order and attaching a copy of the notification to Mr. Mee.

An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules.  In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1966).

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

Dolly M. Gee, Regional Coordinator