Business agent Petrovsky violated the provisions that prohibit campaigning on union time by distributing accreditation petitions at craft and steward meetings, by directing chief stewards to follow-up with stewards about petitions, and by sending the June 23 email. All those chief stewards who complied with Petrovsky’s directives with respect to the petitions also campaigned on union time.
Petrovsky violated the provisions that prohibit use of union facilities for campaigning by speaking in support of the petitions at the May 20 craft meeting held at Local Union 856’s hall and at the June 8 steward meeting held in the union conference room at the union office on UAL property. He committed further violations by using the union office to deliver his directive to chief stewards to follow-up on petition circulation.
Petrovsky violated the provisions that prohibit use of union equipment for campaigning by using the union email network to transmit the June 23 email and by directing the chief stewards to follow up with stewards concerning the petitions, reasonably anticipating that they would do so using union phone lines or union cell phones. The chief stewards who followed Petrovsky’s directive by using union equipment also violated the Rules.
Business agent Molenberg, the Local Union 856 business agent with UAL responsibility, violated the Rules by permitting campaign activity to occur during a union meeting that he co-hosted and taking no action to stop it or to remedy the violation.
Business agent Averette violated the Rules by placing accreditation petitions on the sign-in table for the May 20 craft meeting; in doing so, he made use of the union hall and union equipment to campaign. Averette substantially cured this violation with respect to the accreditation petitions by recognizing the violation after the fact, not turning the signed petitions into the Hoffa-Keegel 2011 campaign, and by surrendering them instead to our investigator. However, the placement of the petitions on the sign-in table constituted campaigning of a type that is not permitted in a local union hall.
When Local Union 986 principal officer Griswold commenced the chain of events that resulted in the Rules violations set forth above by sending the petitions via his assistant to Petrovsky, he undertook an obligation under the Rules to insure that the business agent his local union employed did not use union time, facilities, equipment or personnel to support a candidate. Griswold failed to meet this obligation. A post-it note on a stack of accreditation petitions mailed to a subordinate telling the subordinate to call is not sufficient to convey to that person the proper and improper means of circulating the petitions. Instead, Griswold had an affirmative obligation to communicate the Rules’ requirements to all those whom he asked to circulate the petitions. That he, as Local Union 986’s principal officer, was ignorant of what Petrovsky did until after the protest was filed is no defense to the Rules violations. Similarly, the elected leadership of Local Union 856 may not rely on their asserted lack of knowledge that their business agents and chief stewards conducted campaign activity on union time and using union facilities and equipment as a defense to a protest that the local union violated the Rules.