August 25, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Gillian Furst
August 25, 1998
Page 1
Gillian Furst
3813 Harriet Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55409
George Glasser, MN12-1101
Honeywell, Inc.
Honeywell Plaza, East
Post Office Box 524
Minneapolis, MN XXX-XX-XXXX
Mike McEnelly, Labor Relations,
MN12-1101
Honeywell, Inc.
Honeywell Plaza, East
Post Office Box 524
Minneapolis, MN XXX-XX-XXXX
Thomas W. Leedham
c/o Thomas W. Leedham Campaign Office
Post Office Box 15877
Washington, DC 20003
Loren Soice
2464 East Holloway
North St. Paul, MN 55109
Gillian Furst
August 25, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-168-LU1145-NCE
Gentlemen:
Gillian Furst and Loren Soice, both members of Local Union 544, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Honeywell, Inc.(“Honeywell”). The protesters alleged that Honeywell violated the Rules by refusing to permit Tom Leedham the opportunity to campaign inside a plant located in Golden Valley, Minnesota. Mr. Leedham is a candidate for general president. Honeywell admits that Mr. Leedham was denied access to the plant, but denies that the Rules were violated.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.
Honeywell employs approximately 1,600 Local Union 1145 members in the Golden Valley facility. On July 8, 1998, the protester transmitted a facsimile message to George Glasser, a Honeywell management official. The message stated as follows:
Gillian Furst
August 25, 1998
Page 1
We are writing to inform you that on Thursday, July 9, at 6 a.m., Tom Leedham, a candidate for Teamsters General President and Billie Davenport, a candidate for International Vice President At Large, will be campaigning in the parking lot of Honeywell’s Golden Valley plant. We also plan to take him through the facilities.
Under the rules governing the rerun election for Teamsters International Union officers, employers must grant equal access to company property to candidates for office who wish to campaign. As you know, during our last election in 1996, General President Candidate Jim Hoffa and General Secretary-Treasurer Candidate Tom Keegel were escorted through the Honeywell plants to campaign by officers of Local 1145. We expect the same access to be afforded to Mr. Leedham and Ms. Davenport.
We appreciate you cooperation in this matter.
The protesters, Mr. Leedham and several of Mr. Leedham’s supporters distributed campaign material in a parking lot at the Golden Valley plant the next morning. After completing this activity, Mr. Leedham and the two protesters attempted to enter the plant and continue campaigning. Access was refused by Honeywell.
The protesters contend that during the 1996 campaign, Honeywell permitted Jim Holte to escort James P. Hoffa through the Golden Valley plant. Mr. Holte is the secretary - treasurer of Local Union 1145 and Mr. Hoffa is a candidate for general president opposing Mr. Leedham. Additionally, the protesters recall Tom Keegel walking through the plant and campaigning. Mr. Keegel is a candidate for general secretary - treasurer.
Mr. Holte confirms that he accompanied Mr. Hoffa to the Golden Valley plant during the 1996 campaign and that, after leafletting the lower “downstairs” parking lot in extremely cold temperatures, he and the candidate were granted permission to walk to the upstairs lot through an inside stairway. According to Mr. Holte, Honeywell authorized no campaign activities on this occasion. Mr. Holte states, however, that Mr. Hoffa may have talked to “a couple” of members while proceeding through the facility.
Mr. Holte also admits that, although he had no authorization to do so, he accompanied Mr. Keegel on an extended campaign tour through the inside of the Honeywell Golden Valley facility. He states that Mr. Keegel’s visit was in response to the actions of Ms. Furst, who he claims previously campaigned inside the facility with a candidate. Ms. Furst denies ever having done so.
Gillian Furst
August 25, 1998
Page 1
The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(d) provide as follows:
(d) No restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to use employer or Union bulletin boards for campaign publicity. Similarly, 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. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a nondiscriminatory basis.
The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(a) protect the rights of candidates and members to campaign on employer premises during lunch hours or breaks. No other campaign activities may take place on employer premises unless authorized by Article VIII, Section 11(d), which first requires that a “pre-existing right” be established. The Election Officer has recognized that past practice is a relevant factor in determining whether a “preexisting right” exists for purposes of this section. In re Hall, 90 - Elec. App. - 1 (October 4, 1990); Brinkman, P-151-LU305-PNW (September 18, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 21 (KC) (October 10, 1995).
When the “pre-existing right” is determined to exist, Article VIII, Section 11(d) prevents modification of the practice during the election process. Jesses, P-183-LU612-SEC (February 5, 1991) (“the employer cannot now change its practice” with respect to parking lot access); Camarata, P-709-LU299-MGN (April 10, 1991); Benson, P-431-LU104-RMT (undated). Furthermore, the Rules, as quoted above, specifically require that access rights be applied without discrimination.
Honeywell states that no person may enter the Golden Valley facility to campaign. The company also states that it has no knowledge of Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Keegel or any other candidate gaining access to the Golden Valley plant for this purpose. According to Article III of the applicable collective bargaining agreement, the distribution of “literature in working areas of the plant at any time” and “solicitations of any type, within the Company’s plant(s)” are prohibited. There is no evidence that Honeywell was aware of Mr. Keegel’s presence inside the facility or of any other campaign activities occurring within its Golden Valley facility.
The evidence presented is insufficient to establish a pre-existing right to campaign within the premises of Honeywell’s facility in Golden Valley, Minnesota. See, Eby, PR-086-LU688-RMT (July 6, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 362 (KC) (July 24, 1998) (campaign activities insufficient to establish pre-existing right where the protester “doubts” the employer was aware of them).
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
Gillian Furst
August 25, 1998
Page 1
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
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator