February 18, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Robert A. Kronhert
February 18, 1998
Page 1
Robert A. Kronhert
41 Hawthorne Street
Rutherford, NJ 07070
John Listinsky
Human Resources Director
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
200 U.S. Highway 1
Newark, NJ 07101
Pete Tierney, Sec.-Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 843
446 Morris Avenue
Springfield, NJ 07081
Robert A. Kronhert
February 18, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-054-LU843-NYC
Gentlemen:
Robert Kronhert, a member of Local Union 843, 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”) against his employer, Anheuser-Busch (“company”). The protester alleges that the company refused to accommodate his work-related disability in retaliation for his earlier filing of an election-related protest against them.
The protest was investigated by New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt.
Mr. Kronhert has been employed at the Anheuser-Busch facility in Newark, New Jersey, since 1982 and held the position of night steward from August 1996 until January 1998. Mr. Kronhert has filed numerous grievances with the company and by his own admission is “a thorn in their side.” He suffered two work-related injuries and has been out of work continuously since July 1997. In late September 1997, the company advised Mr. Kronhert and his union that it was unable to find a job within the protester’s medical restrictions. On October 6, 1997, Mr. Kronhert filed a grievance protesting the company’s failure to create a position for him. On November 13, 1997, he filed an unfair labor practice charge, stating that the company’s actions were due to “his union activities as elected shift shop steward, the upcoming shop steward nomination and elections and his active support of a Teamsters presidential nominee.” The company did not meet with Mr. Kronhert to discuss his grievance until January 7, 1998, two days after the protester lost his election for chief steward by a slim margin.
Robert A. Kronhert
February 18, 1998
Page 1
Mr. Kronhert alleges that the company’s refusal to accommodate his restrictions was in retaliation for a protest he filed against them in October 1996. In Kronhert, P-1077-LU843-PNJ, aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. 266 (KC) (November 8, 1996) the Election Officer found that Anheuser-Busch had improperly excluded James Hoffa from the company premises while it allowed Ron Carey access to campaign. The company acknowledged its violation and offered access to Mr. Hoffa prior to the decision of the Election Officer. The Election Officer did not issue any remedy against the company.
In the instant protest, Mr. Kronhert bases his claim of retaliation on the fact that in late December 1997, when he showed some of his campaign material to the Manager of Human Resources, John Listinsky, Mr. Listinsky said “Another Hoffa thing?” Mr. Kronhert interprets the remark to relate to the prior protest. Mr. Kronhert provided no other evidence linking any discrimination by the company to retaliation for filing a protest.
The Rules at Article XIV, Section 2(b) state that preelection protests “must be filed within two (2) working days of the day when the protester becomes aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived.” The requirement to promptly file protests is an important part of the election process. The short time limits were designed to ensure that alleged violations of the Rules would be quickly brought to the attention of the Election Officer in order to afford the greatest opportunity for applying an effective remedy in the event a violation is found. Nevertheless, the Election Officer has not treated time limits as an absolute jurisdictional requirement, but rather a prudential restriction.
The instant protest was filed on January 12, 1998, over three months after the company’s initial refusal to accommodate Mr. Kronhert’s restrictions and nearly two months after Mr. Kronhert’s filing of an unfair labor practice charge. As the Election Appeals Master stated in In re: Heiman, 96 - Elec. App. - 172 (KC) (April 18, 1997):
Circumstances, especially the long public exposure of a violation, may give rise to a conclusion that a concerned party can reasonably be held to have constructive knowledge of said violation, with his failure to act under such circumstances being an appropriate basis upon which to find that any protest right has been waived.
There is no justification offered by Mr. Kronhert for his failure to file a protest when he first became aware of the existence of a potential violation of the Rules. Consequently, the Election Officer finds that the protest is untimely. See Ruscigno, P-144-LU337-MGN (October 4, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 25 (KC) (October 18, 1995); Young, P-423-LU41-MOI (April 4, 1996).
Robert A. Kronhert
February 18, 1998
Page 1
Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules prohibits any retaliation against anyone by the Union or its agents for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules. No violation of this section can be sustained unless some evidence is presented or disclosed which expressly or inferentially connects the conduct which is alleged to be improper to an activity protected by the Rules. Giacumbo, P-100-IBT-PNJ (October 13, 1995); Salucci, P-178-LU552-MOI (October 31, 1995); Rogers, P-1346-IBT-NYC (March 4, 1997), aff’d, 97 - Elec. App. - 320 (KC) (March 17, 1997).
Even if the Election Officer were to find this protest timely, with the exception of an ambiguous remark by Mr. Listinsky, Mr. Kronhert presented no evidence of a causal relationship between the company’s refusal to accommodate his disability and his filing of the earlier election-related protest.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
MGC:chh
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Barbara C. Deinhardt, New York City Protest Coordinator