This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

November 2, 1998

 

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL

 


Bob Hasegawa

November 2, 1998

Page 1

 

Bob Hasegawa

3121 16th Avenue S.

Seattle, WA 98144

 

Gary M. Tocci, Esq.

Schnader, Harrison, Segal

   And Lewis

1600 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

 

Tom Leedham Campaign Office

P.O. Box 15877

Washington, DC 20003

 

Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.

Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure

113 University Place

New York, NY 10003

 

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098


Hoffa Slate

c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.

Baptiste & Wilder

1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036

 

Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,

   Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway

Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

 

Jon Rabine, President

Teamsters Joint Council 28

553 John Street

Seattle, WA 98109


Bob Hasegawa

November 2, 1998

Page 1

 

Re: Election Office Case No. PR-234-LU174-PNW

 

Gentlemen:

 

Bob Hasegawa, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 174 and a candidate for international vice-president on the Tom Leedham “Rank and File Power” Slate, 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 United Parcel Service (“UPS”).  The protester alleges that UPS, at its Redmond, Washington, facility restricted the right of members to campaign by prohibiting employees who do not interact with customers from wearing campaign buttons and other paraphernalia during work hours.

 


Bob Hasegawa

November 2, 1998

Page 1

 

This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Christine M. Mrak.

 

On August 13, 1998, Don Scott, an IBT member, was approached by his Supervisor Don Carter who told him, “You can’t wear your Leedham button on the clock.  You need to tell your Leedham people that.”  Mr. Scott states that around the third week of August, UPS changed its policy to permit employees to wear campaign paraphernalia during work hours within the Redmond facility.  Under this policy, employees have to remove the campaign paraphernalia when interfacing with customers.

 

In Dzilenski, PR-254-LU174-EOH (October 13, 1998), the Election Officer determined that another case involving the same UPS facility was resolved.  There, UPS stated that the Election Officer’s decision in Krutchen, PR-205-LU705-NCE (September 8, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. 377 (KC) (September 24, 1998) aptly describes the company’s nationwide approach to the issue of employees wearing campaign paraphernalia during work hours.  In that decision, the Election Officer found that “UPS continues to observe its longstanding, strict dress and grooming code for UPS drivers and other employees who come in contact with the public . . . [and that] [t]his dress code includes a prohibition against wearing campaign paraphernalia, including union campaign buttons on UPS uniforms.”  Krutchen at p.3.  The Election Officer went on, however, to state that “[the fact] [t]hat UPS does not apply this policy to employees who do not interact with the public is consistent with the Rules.” (Emphasis added).  Krutchen at p.6. 

 

UPS allows all of its employees, at this facility and nationwide, to wear campaign paraphernalia while at work, as long as they remove it when they interact with customers.  Furthermore, as stated in Dzilenski, upon being made aware of a violation of the campaign paraphernalia policy at its Redmond facility, UPS required the supervisors at that facility to immediately cease from improperly prohibiting the wearing of campaign paraphernalia and to comply with its policy as described in PR-205.

 

In these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes that further processing of this protest is unwarranted.  The protester’s complaint, as contained in this protest, has been addressed.

 

Accordingly, the protest is 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:

 

 


Bob Hasegawa

November 2, 1998

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,

 

 

 

Michael G. Cherkasky

Election Officer

 

cc:       Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Christine M. Mrak, Regional Coordinator