December 3, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Ruth Ann Stodola
1933 Sheridan Street
Madison, WI 53704
Mike Spencer, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 695
1314 N. Stoughton Road
Madison, WI 53714
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-366-LU695-NCE
Gentlepersons:
Ruth Ann Stodola, a member and business agent of Local Union 695, 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”) alleging that Local Union 695 Secretary-Treasurer Mike Spencer has retaliated against her, in violation of the Rules, by terminating her employment as a Business Agent in retaliation for the protest she filed in 1996 since she was the sole Local Union employee who would not support the candidacy of James P. Hoffa in the 1998 International Officer Rerun Election.
Mr. Spencer responds that Ms. Stodola was terminated because of her opposition to him in the Local Union 695 officer elections and for disruption, insubordination and incompetence in the performance of her job duties.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.
The protester was appointed as business agent of Local 695 by the former secretary-treasurer, David Shipley. During the 1996 International Officer Election campaign, the protester, alone among the staff and officers of Local Union 695, supported Ron Carey and campaigned actively on his behalf. In her decision in P-1176, then Election Officer Quindel found that Mr. Shipley took a number of actions to retaliate against Ms. Stodola for her support in violation of the Rules. The investigation also produced evidence of widespread generalized hostility against Ms. Stodola, who was allegedly combative, suspicious and hostile in her relations with other Local Union 695 staff members.
Ruth Ann Stodola
December 3, 1998
Page 1
In January 1997, following the issuance of the decision in P-1176, Mr. Shipley retired from his position with the local union and was succeeded by Mr. Spencer. During the two years between the issuance of the decision in P-1176 and the termination at issue here, there were a number of incidents alleged by the protester as evidence of continuing hostility from the local union leadership as evidence of Ms. Stodola’s continuing inability to perform as a business agent. There was no direct evidence of election-related hostility by Mr. Spencer or other local union officers.
During the rerun campaign, Ms. Stodola did not support Mr. Hoffa as did other officers of Local Union 695, but she did not actively campaign for any other slate in the International Officer Rerun Election. She did, however, lead a slate of local union candidates against the Spencer administration in the Local 695 officer election. She lost this election by a margin of approximately 300 votes in a count that took place on October 26, 1998. The following day, the local union sent her a letter terminating her for failure to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of her position.
Local Union 695 asserts that Ms. Stodola was discharged primarily as a result of the disloyalty evident in her campaign against Mr. Spencer. The local union submitted a series of flyers used by Mr. Stodola during the campaign. One flyer, containing a large picture of a dinosaur, says “Mike Spencer...BAD for the bakery. BAD for the members. BAD for Local 695. BAD for the Teamsters. Vote for the Stodola Slate...Best for the Future!” Another flyer insinuates that Mr. Spencer has a drinking problem and features a picture of a large chicken with a mug of beer, and various other party symbols, such as cocktail glasses. It reads, “Spencer + Excellence = Oxymoron. Vote for sober representation. Stodola Slate ‘98. For the membership. For a change.” Additional flyers attack the competence and ethics of other members of Local Union 695’s staff.
Ruth Ann Stodola
December 3, 1998
Page 1
Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules prohibits any retaliation against anyone by the Union or its agents for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules.[1] To demonstrate retaliation, a protester must show that conduct protected by the Rules was a motivating factor in the adverse decision or conduct in dispute. The Election Officer will not find retaliation if he concludes that the union officer or entity would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protester’s protected conduct. Gilmartin, P-032-LU245-PNJ (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 75 (KC) (February 6, 1996). See Leal, P-051- IBT-CSF (October 3, 1995), aff’d,
95 - Elec. App. - 30 (KC) (October 30, 1995); Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995).
In the instant case, the local union argues and the Election Officer agrees that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 (1982), appointed business agents serve at the pleasure of the elected incumbent leadership, which is entitled to employ business agents who will support the elected leadership and, conversely, to remove from employment those business agents who supported the defeated opponents. To the extent that the retaliation is for support of a candidate in a local officer election, the action is beyond the scope of the Rules and the remedial authority of the Election Officer.
On this record, the Election Officer finds that there is insufficient evidence that the termination was for a protest filed two years earlier or for Ms. Stodola’s non-support of
Mr. Hoffa for international president. Rather, the timing of the action supports the local union’s position that the action was taken because of her active and often personally insulting campaign against Mr. Spencer for secretary-treasurer that culminated in Mr. Spencer’s election the day before the termination.
The local union also alleges a number of incidents preceded the termination that in themselves justified the action taken. For example, the union cites an arbitration decision issued the month before in which the arbitrator dismissed the union’s grievance because Ms. Stodola failed to timely file for arbitration. In light of the finding that Ms. Stodola’s election campaign against Mr. Spencer was itself sufficient to justify the termination, it is not necessary to analyze the other defenses offered by the union.
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 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
Ruth Ann Stodola
December 3, 1998
Page 1
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 444 N. Capitol Street, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael Cherkasky
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Judith Kuhn, Regional Coordinator
[1]Article VIII, Section 11(f) states:
Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.