November 4, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Frank Bryant
November 4, 1996
Page 1
Frank Bryant
7707 Stonewood Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Richard Dahmer
United Parcel Service
3100 Flagstone Drive
Greensboro, NC 27406
Roger Milner
United Parcel Service
3100 Flagstone Drive
Greensboro, NC 27406
Martin Wald
Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis
1500 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Frank Bryant
November 4, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1094-LU391-SEC
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
Frank Bryant, a member of Local Union 391, against United Parcel Service (“UPS”).
Mr. Bryant alleges that UPS’s policy prohibiting him from wearing campaign buttons, hats and coats while in company uniform infringes on his pre-existing campaign rights.
In response, UPS admits that it has forbidden Mr. Bryant from wearing campaign paraphernalia while in uniform and on the job at all times, but states that the policy does not violate the Rules because the company does not permit any employees who come in contact with the public to wear campaign buttons on company uniforms.
This protest was investigated Regional Coordinator J. Griffin Morgan.
Frank Bryant
November 4, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer’s investigation shows that UPS has long-maintained a strict dress and grooming code for UPS drivers and other employees who come in contact with the public. This dress code includes a prohibition against wearing campaign buttons, including union campaign buttons. UPS feeder drivers, such as Mr. Bryant, spend approximately one-half hour each shift at the terminal prior to going out on their regular assignments. The vast majority of their shift time is spent as over-the-road tractor-trailer drivers.
Article VIII, Section 11(d) of the Rules states that “no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fundraising events or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises.” The Advisory on Wearing of Campaign Buttons and Other Emblems (“Advisory”) issued by the Election Officer on September 20, 1995, states that “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 (citations omitted). The Advisory states further that:
[A] member’s right to wear campaign emblems, including buttons, t-shirts and hats, while on work time may be circumscribed by the member’s employer or the public at large. The employer may prevent the wearing of campaign emblems only where the prohibition is necessary to maintain production and discipline, safety or preventing alienation of customers. The basis for these limited exceptions is the right of the employer to prevent unrelated third parties from inappropriately assuming that the employer supports the political or campaign position advocated by the employee or the employee’s emblem . . .
(Citation omitted.)
In 1991, the Election Officer considered the UPS policy currently at issue as it applies to the wearing of campaign buttons under the Rules. In Epperson, P-779-LU41-MOI (July 18, 1991), the Election Officer found that members do not have a right to wear such buttons “where there is no evidence that IBT members employed by UPS at this facility [ever had] a pre-existing right” to do so. Similarly, here, while Mr. Bryant requests that he be allowed to wear campaign buttons while working at the terminal among other IBT members, he has not demonstrated that a right to wear such buttons has ever existed at the facility. The Rules and the Advisory clearly give employers the right to limit the wearing of campaign paraphernalia in the case of employees who have substantial exposure to the general public. Mr. Bryant, as a feeder driver, spends the vast majority of his time outside the terminal and in front of the general public. UPS’s actions were consistent with the Rules and the Advisory.
In consideration of the foregoing, 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:
Frank Bryant
November 4, 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
J. Griffin Morgan, Regional Coordinator