July 18, 1996
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ken Mee, Vice President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Wyndham Franklin Hotel
Philadelphia, PA
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Ken Mee
July 18, 1996
Page 1
Paul Puskar, Manager
Hershey Chocolate U.S.A.
1400 S. Yosemite Avenue
Oakdale, CA 95361
Jay V. Jory
Jory, Peterson, Watkins & Smith
555 W. Shaw, Suite C1
Fresno, CA 93755
Ken Mee
July 18, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-835-IBT-CLA
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by International Vice President Ken Mee, a member of Local Union 287 and a candidate for
re-election. Mr. Mee alleges that Hershey Chocolate U.S.A. (“Hershey”) improperly denied him and three other IBT members access to Hershey’s Oakdale, California parking lot to campaign, in violation of Article VIII, Section 11(e) of the Rules. Mr. Mee requests that the Election Officer not only order access to the property, but asks the Election Officer to order Hershey to provide his campaign with chocolate compensation and mileage and time spent by campaign workers for a wasted trip.
In response, Hershey states that the company was unaware of the protester’s right of access under the Rules to campaign in its parking lot when he attempted to campaign. Hershey argues that Mr. Mee improperly attempted to bring a campaign trailer onto an employer’s premises, which it contends he attempted to do.
Ken Mee
July 18, 1996
Page 1
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee.
At approximately 12:30 p.m. on July 2, 1996, Mr. Mee and three other IBT members attempted to campaign at Hershey’s Oakdale plant. Mr. Mee and the others were in two vehicles, one of which pulled a 10-foot high, 20-foot long Carey sign trailer. A guard employed by Hershey denied the campaigners access to the parking lot. Paul Puskar, a manager at Hershey’s, then spoke to Mr. Mee. The protester showed Mr. Puskar a copy of the Rules regarding employer access and his candidate credentials and requested that
Mr. Puskar contact the Office of the Election Officer. Mr. Mee was asked to park across the street in a public parking lot until a company attorney was consulted. Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Puskar told Mr. Mee that access to the Hershey parking lot would be denied. Mr. Mee and the others then left.
The limited-access rule has been designed to infringe upon any employer’s property rights only to the extent necessary to implement the goals of the Consent Decree providing for supervision of the delegate and International officer elections. In United States v. IBT, No. 88 Civ. 4486 (S.D.N.Y. August 22, 1995), the court approved the limited-access rule, finding it “crucial to the achievement of a free, fair, and democratic election process.” Id., slip op.
at 42. This right, however, does not extend to the right of access to trailers, tents or any other vehicles for campaigning. See Young, P-266-IBT-SCE (January 4, 1996).
Hershey has now agreed that it will provide limited access, in accordance with the Rules. Hershey states that access at its Western plant will be limited to the employee parking lot and that the parking lot is utilized by its employees during shift changes which occur between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., and 10:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. Hershey will not, however, grant access to trailers, billboards or loudspeakers for the purposes of campaigning. Hershey also has requested that IBT members seeking access under the Rules give prior notice to the plant’s administration before campaigning by calling
(209) 848-5109.
Under these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes that further processing of this protest is unwarranted. The protester’s complaints as stated in this protest have been addressed. In these circumstances, the Election Officer refuses Mr. Mee’s request for compensation.
Accordingly, this protest is now RESOLVED.
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:
Ken Mee
July 18, 1996
Page 1
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