IN RE: JOHN RANDOLPH, ROGER REYES, MARIA GALLO and FERNANDO ZAVALETA
Protest Decision 2000 EAD 28
Issued: September 27, 2000
OEA Case No. PR091201WE
John Randolph, Roger Reyes, Fernando H. Zavaleta and Maria C. Gallo, members of Local 601 and delegate candidates on the "Reform and Democracy" slate (the "RD slate") filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules") against Local 601 secretary-treasurer Lucio Reyes and the Proven Excellence Slate ("PE slate"), of which Lucio Reyes is a member. The RD slate members contend that Lucio Reyes and the PE slate violated the Rules by preparing election protests and supporting materials on paid union time for filing with the Election Administrator.
Regional Coordinator Christine M. Mrak investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
PE slate members Lucio Reyes, Lorraine Torres, Ed Ryan and Howard Schock filed protest cases PR083101WE, PR090501WE, PR090502WE, PR090503WE and PR090504WE (together the "PE slate protests") with the Election Administrator on August 31 and September 5, 2000. Each of the four PE slate protestors is an officer or staff employee of Local 601. The PE slate protests alleged that members of the RD slate violated the Rules by distribution of an altered version of a proof copy of the sample delegate election ballot for Local 601.[1] On September 25, 2000, we approved the PE slate protestors' request to withdraw their protests.
The PE slate protests were not frivolous. During the course of our investigation, we established that members of the RD slate, or persons acting in their behalf, caused the printer's proof of the sample ballot to be altered and, in its altered form, to be distributed at worksites of members of the local union. The ballot was appended to two pages of campaign literature exhorting the membership to support the RD slate. The printer's proof of the official ballot, as attached to the partisan material, was altered from its original form in three significant respects. First, the words "SAMPLE BALLOT," which had appeared on the printer's proof in two places, were removed from the copies distributed to the membership. Second, the original proof was printed on 8 ½ x 14" stock; the altered ballot was printed on 8 ½ x 11" paper. However, the altered ballot was not xerographically reduced from the original. Rather, the altered ballot was a photocopy of the lower 11" of the 14" original. Finally, the altered ballot contained a check-mark, in colored highlighter, in the box for the RD slate.[2]
The PE slate protests that challenged this conduct were sent by facsimile to the Election Administrator on August 30 and September 5, 2000. It is undisputed that the protestors sent them to the Election Administrator from Local 601's fax machine. The protests were not, however, composed at the local. Instead, as established by our interviews of the witnesses, the protests were composed at the homes of the PE slate protestors, on their own time, and brought to the local for fax transmission to the Election Administrator.[3] The RD slate protestors provided no evidence to the contrary.
Analysis and Conclusion
There is no dispute that Lucio Reyes, Ryan, Torres and Schock used Local 601 resources to transmit their protests to the Election Administrator. Each protest bears a Local 601 header produced by the local's fax machine. The RD slate protest concedes that this does not violate Article VII, Section 11(c) or Article XI, Section 1(a)(6) of the Rules, under which union resources may not be used to promote the candidacy of any individual. That concession is required by prior decisions under the election rules, which make clear that this prohibition does not run to the use of union resources in the filing of protests under those rules. See, Scalf, P97 (August 16, 1995); Cook, P357 (February 16, 1996), aff'd 96 EAM 113 (February 29, 1996); Kieffer, P360 (March 19, 1996); Kloes, P487 (March 4, 1996), aff'd 96 EAM 125 (March 13, 1996); Kronhert, P489 (March 15, 1996), aff'd 96 EAM 126 (March 13, 1996). Following the lead of Scalf, supra, each of these cases holds that "[t]here are no restrictions on the right to file protests…" under the election rules.
The protestors nevertheless assert that union resources were improperly used here because the protestors may have prepared the PE slate protests on paid union time. We reject this claim. Our investigation revealed that the protests were not prepared on union time. Instead, each was prepared at the protestor's home and then brought to the local union to be faxed to the Election Administrator. The facts here simply do not support the claims of the RD slate protestors, and dismissal of this protest is accordingly required.[4]
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Administrator in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appear, and shall be served upon:
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
Suite 1000
885 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Fax: 212-751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, c/o International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 25 Louisiana Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001, all within the time period prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Election Administrator
cc: Kenneth Conboy
Christine M. Mrak
2000 EAD 28
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA UPS NEXT DAY AIR
Patrick Szymanski
IBT General Counsel
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
J. Douglas Korney
Korney & Heldt
30700 Telegraph Rd. Suite 1551
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Tom Leedham
18763 South Highway 211
Molalla OR 97038
Barbara Harvey
Penobscot Building, Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Teamsters Local 601
745 E. Miner Ave.
Stockton, CA 95202
Lucio M. Reyes
5 E. Harding Way
Stockton, CA 95204
John L. Randolph
2457 Madison
Stockton, CA 95206
Roger Reyes
2201 Clipper Place
Stockton, CA 95204
Fernando Zavaleta
519 S. Washington
Modesto, CA 95351
Maria Gallo
169 Mulberry Circle
Lodi, CA 95240
[1] Local 601 is a seasonal local permitted by Article II, Section 3(a)(2) of the Rules to conduct its delegate election in Summer 2000.
[2] The printer's proof differed from the official ballot used in the local union's delegate election in two respects. First, the words "SAMPLE BALLOT" did not appear on the official ballot. Second, the official ballot included a union label indicating that the printer is unionized.
[3] The RD slate protestors allege otherwise, but they produced no evidence indicating that the PE slate protests were composed at Local 601 using union resources or on paid union time.
[4] Moreover, even if we were to find that the protests here were composed and typed at the local union on staff paid time, the above-cited precedents suggest that no impropriety would have occurred.