for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: SEAN MASON, ) Protest Decision 2021 ESD 93
) Issued: March 26, 2021
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-106-031021-SO
____________________________________)
Sean Mason, member of Local Union 385, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protest alleged that shop steward Greg Alexander violated the Rules by intimidating members about their voting choices.
Election Supervisor representative Dolores Hall investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Local Union 385 will elect 10 delegates and 3 alternate delegates to the IBT convention. Two full slates and 1 independent candidate are competing for these positions. The OZ Teamsters United Local 385 slate is headed by Mason, the protestor here. The Teamsters Unite! Stronger Contracts slate is comprised in part by employees of the local union.
Ballots were mailed to members on March 2, 2021. Investigation showed that a week later, on March 9, shop steward Greg Alexander and rank-and-file member John Rodeffer campaigned at the UPS Sanford center for the Teamsters Unite! For Stronger Contracts slate and, specifically, for Randy Collins, a delegate candidate who is the local union business agent for the Sanford center.
Investigation showed that the campaigners approached union members at the site, distributed campaign flyers, and asked members if they had voted. Respondent Alexander, a 13-year veteran of the Sanford worksite, told our investigator he knows nearly all employees who work there. He said he asked members if they had already voted. If they said he did, he asked them who they voted for “because I wanted to know.” He stated that his tone when asking the question reflected curiosity rather than confrontation. He denied behaving in an intimidating manner, stating that he would never use union partisanship when performing his steward functions.
Alexander’s fellow campaigner, Rodeffer, told our investigator that he too asked members if they had voted. If the answer was yes, he stated he replied, “Great,” as he saw no purpose in campaigning to them. He denied asking members how they voted.
Our investigator interviewed rank-and-file members who interacted with Alexander or Rodeffer that day. One said that Rodeffer asked him how he voted; he replied that he was not going to say who he voted for. According to the member, Rodeffer replied, “I guess that means that you voted for Mason,” stating further that the member “must be new” and Rodeffer would “let him slide this time.” The member told our investigator that he did not feel intimidated by Rodeffer but concluded that, if he needed either help from Alexander or Rodeffer in the future, he might not get it.
Another member told our investigator that Alexander asked him how he voted. He replied that the answer was none of Alexander’s business. The member told our investigator that he was not intimidated by the question but that newer employees might feel that, since Alexander is a steward, they should vote the way he tells them.
Other witnesses interviewed denied that they were intimidated by the conduct of Alexander or Rodeffer.
Article II, Section 15 prohibits interference with voting. The activity described here did not violate that provision because the members had already voted. Article VII, Section 12(g) prohibits retaliation or threat of retaliation for exercising any right protected by the Rules. The right to determine which candidate to support is protected. A threat to withhold union support for a member because of the member’s exercise of a protected right, whether that threat is stated expressly or by implication, violates the Rules. See, e.g., Ostrach, 2000 EAD 57 (December 6, 2000) (threat not to back a local union because its principal officer was running for International office violated the Rules). However, mere campaign speech, without more, does not constitute retaliation. Scaglia, 2017 ESD 374 (January 27, 2017).
On the facts here, we find no intimidation or threat of retaliation by Alexander or Rodeffer. Accordingly, we DENY the protest.
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. Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i). All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Barbara Jones
Election Appeals Master
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, all within the time prescribed above. Service may be accomplished by email, using the “reply all” function on the email by which the party received this decision. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones
2021 ESD 93
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
braymond@teamster.org
Edward Gleason
egleason@gleasonlawdc.com
Patrick Szymanski
szymanskip@me.com
Will Bloom
wbloom@dsgchicago.com
Tom Geoghegan
tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com
Rob Colone
rmcolone@hotmail.com
Barbara Harvey
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Kevin Moore
Mooregp2021@gmail.com
F.C. “Chris” Silvera
fitzverity@aol.com
Fred Zuckerman
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
ken@tdu.org
Sean Mason
Seanlmason16@gmail.com
Teamsters Local Union 385
Michael McElmury, Trustee
mmcelmury@teamster.org
Randy Collins
rcollins@local385.org
Dolores Hall
dhall@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com