August 2, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Mauricio Terrazas
August 2, 1996
Page 1
Mauricio Terrazas
3800 Bradford Street #233
La Verne, CA 91750
Otis Clelland, Supervisor
Sweetheart Cup Corporation
800 Iowa Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
Mark Ebstein, Terminal Manager
Consolidated Freight Lines
11888 Mission Boulevard
Mira Loma, CA 91752
Mauricio Terrazas
August 2, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-831-LU63-CLA
Gentlemen:
Mauricio Terrazas, a member of Local Union 63, 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”) alleging that two employers, Sweetheart Cup Corporation in Riverside, California (“Sweetheart”) and Consolidated Freight Lines in Mira Loma, California (“CF”), failed to provide him access to their parking lots for campaigning, as required by the Rules.
Sweetheart initially relied on its pre-existing policy that prohibits campaigning on the employer’s premises. CF contends that it allowed the protester access to the employee parking lot, but legitimately refused his request to campaign in the employer’s separate work yard area.
Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee investigated this protest.
Mauricio Terrazas
August 2, 1996
Page 1
1. Charge Against Sweetheart
On June 27, 1996, Sweetheart denied the protester access to its employee parking lot for campaigning. Sweetheart has a pre-existing policy prohibiting campaigning anywhere on its premises.
Article VIII, Section 11(e) of the Rules creates a limited right of access for IBT members and candidates to distribute literature and seek support for their campaign in any parking lot used by union members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment. While “presumptively available,” this right is not without limitations. It is not available to any employee on working time and candidates and their supporters cannot solicit or campaign to employees who are on working time.
After discussion with the Regional Coordinator, Sweetheart has now agreed that it will provide limited access for campaigning at its parking lot, in accordance with the Rules. The employer asks that campaigners park in the visitors’ parking area and check in with the security officer. Under these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes that further processing of this protest, insofar as it alleges a violation of the Rules by Sweetheart, is unwarranted. The protester’s complaint against Sweetheart, as stated in this protest, has been addressed.
Accordingly, the protest against Sweetheart is now RESOLVED.
2. Charge Against CF
On June 27, 1996, CF permitted the protester to obtain access to its employee parking lot, but denied his request to enter a separate work yard area at the terminal, where about 20 cars belonging to line drivers were parked. The work yard area, separated from the employee parking lot by a fence, is secure and restricted. There is a guard shack at the entrance to the work yard where employees must present identification in order to enter the area. Although supervisors and some drivers who are on the road are permitted to park in the yard area for security reasons, the area is not used strictly as an employee parking lot. Tractors and trailers are parked there. Substantial work activity occurs there, including loading of freight and operation of heavy machinery.
Article VIII, Section 11(e) of the Rules explicitly states that the limited access permitted in that provision does not entitle “any candidate or other Union member to access to any other part of premises owned, leased, operated or used by an employer.” Additionally, the rights guaranteed by the section “do not extend to campaigning which would materially interfere with the normal business activities of the employer.” Because the work yard area at CF to which the protester requested access is entirely distinct from the employee parking lot and is the site of significant business activity, access to this yard for campaigning is not required by the Rules.
Accordingly, the protest against CF is DENIED.
Mauricio Terrazas
August 2, 1996
Page 1
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, 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