November 9, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
David Dunning
November 9, 1995
Page 1
David Dunning
7788 Trinklein Road
Saginaw, MI 48609
Bernard DeSander
2252 Linda Street
Saginaw, MI 48603
David Robinson Slate
c/o Teamsters Local Union 486
6165 Bay Road, Suite A
Saginaw, MI 48603
David Dunning
November 9, 1995
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-206-LU486-MGN
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
David Dunning, a member of Local Union 486 and a candidate for delegate. The protester complains that Bernie DeSander, a Local Union 486 retiree, verbally threatened him, attempting to intimidate him from running for delegate. The protester alleges that
Mr. DeSander supports the David Robinson slate, which opposes the protester in the delegate elections.
Mr. DeSander admits to using language attributed to him by the protester but denies that he threatened him. Mr. Robinson denies that Mr. DeSander was speaking on behalf of the David Robinson Slate.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
The facts are not in dispute. As Mr. Dunning was leaving the Local Union 486 hall after its local union officer election (held on October 19, 1995), Bernie DeSander drove into the parking lot. Mr. DeSander rolled down his car window and asked the protester “if he lost his fuckin’ ass again,” and told him that he “should be ashamed of himself; all [he was] doing was wasting our local union’s money.” Mr. Dunning replied, “Fuck you, you should join a real union,” before getting into his pickup and driving away.
David Dunning
November 9, 1995
Page 1
The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(f), prohibit retaliation and the threat of retaliation by any person against a member for exercising any right guaranteed therein. No violation of this section can be sustained, however, unless there is evidence which expressly or inferentially connects the conduct which is alleged to be improper to an activity protected by the Rules. See Giacumbo, P-100-IBT-PNJ (October 13, 1995). Here, the comment was made after the election of local union officers, which is not within the Election Officer’s jurisdiction.
Even if the Election Officer were to find a connection between Mr. DeSander’s words and the protester’s candidacy for delegate, Mr. DeSander’s statements did not constitute a direct or implied threat of retaliation. The mere fact that Mr. DeSander engaged the protester in a heated exchange is not a violation of the Rules. See Dunn, P-110-LU25-BOS (July 28, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 8 (KC) (August 21, 1995).
The protest is DENIED.
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:
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 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
William A. Wertheimer, Jr., Regional Coordinator