November 4, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Donald Dunsmore
November 4, 1996
Page 1
Donald Dunsmore
24290 Mt. Olive
Flat Rock, MI 48134
Larry Murray, Director of Labor Relations
E & L Transport
35005 Michigan Avenue
Wayne, MI 48184
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Donald Dunsmore
November 4, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1093-LU299-MGN
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
Donald Dunsmore, a member of Local Union 299. Mr. Dunsmore alleges that his employer, E & L Transport (“E & L”), ordered him to remove a sticker from his bump hat supporting the candidacy of James Hoffa, a member of Local Union 614 and a candidate for general president, while allowing others to display insignias of support for the candidacy of
Ron Carey, incumbent general president and a candidate for reelection, in violation of the Rules.
E & L responds that it has always enforced a policy that prohibits employees from displaying campaign-related paraphernalia on employer-provided clothing or equipment. The employer states that it issued the bump hats earlier this year, but retains ownership of them. According to the employer, drivers such as Mr. Dunsmore wear the hats infrequently and only when performing specific jobs.
Donald Dunsmore
November 4, 1996
Page 1
Regional Coordinator William A. Wertheimer, Jr. investigated the protest.
The investigation revealed that on October 16, 1996, Mike Erwin, a supervisor at
E & L, sent the protester to Chris Trimble, a higher level supervisor at the employer, because of the stickers on Mr. Dunsmore’s bump hat. Mr. Trimble told Mr. Dunsmore that the stickers violated company policy and must be removed. At this point, Mr. Dunsmore asked Mr. Trimble the penalty he would incur if he refused. Mr. Trimble described an escalating series of penalties that would ultimately result in his dismissal. Mr. Dunsmore then agreed to remove the stickers and has not worn them since.
In the Advisory on Wearing of Campaign Buttons and Other Emblems (“Advisory”), the Election Officer stated as follows:
The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(d), also provide that “no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fund-raising events or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises.” Among the rights so protected by the Rules is the right of IBT members to wear campaign emblems on buttons, t-shirts or hats while working . . .
This protection of the preexisting right to campaign, however, does not create a right to deface employer property, such as employer-provided vehicles, tools, or protective clothing. An employer ban on affixing campaign material to employer property and equipment does not violate the Rules so long as the employer does not enforce this policy in a discriminatory fashion.
The protester claims that individuals with Carey stickers on their bump hats were not threatened with discipline or ordered to remove the stickers. He admits, however, that he did not inform the company that he knew employees at E & L who wore Carey stickers on their bump hats. He also states that, after the employer demanded the removal of the stickers on his bump hat, he did not see pro-Carey stickers displayed on other bump hats.
Larry Murray, E & L’s labor relations director, states that he knows nothing about pro-Carey stickers on bump hats, but states that he will evenly enforce the company’s policy and order the removal of such stickers if they are brought to his attention. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Election Officer credits Mr. Murray’s statements. The investiga-tion failed to disclose evidence of discriminatory application of the employer’s policy banning the display of campaign materials on employer-owned bump hats.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
Donald Dunsmore
November 4, 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
William A. Wertheimer, Jr., Regional Coordinator