 |
|
|
|
IN RE: TIM ROBERTSON and BEN SIZEMORE, Protestors. Tim Robertson and Ben Sizemore, members of Local Union 407, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2005-2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protest alleged that the local union failed to post notice of submission of the local union plan on union bulletin boards, as required by the Rules. Election Supervisor representative William Kane investigated this protest. Findings of Fact and Analysis Local Union 407 submitted its proposed local union plan for the delegate and alternate delegate election to our office on September 26, 2005. “As soon as possible, but no later than five (5) days after” submitting its proposed plan to our office, the local union was required to post notice on all union bulletin boards stating it had submitted the proposed plan for approval, and advising members of their rights to review, obtain copies, and comment on the plan. Article II, Section 4(e). The local union did not post the required notice within five days as required by the Rules. Indeed, it mailed the notice to its 67 stewards on October 4; under these circumstances, the earliest date the required notice could have been posted was October 5, nine days after the plan was submitted to our office. However, the protestors contend that, as of October 27, 31 days after the plan was submitted to our office, the local union had yet to post the required notices at several worksites, including three Yellow Freight facilities that employed a combined workforce of 1,000 members. The local union asserts to the contrary that the notices had been posted, albeit untimely, but they had been torn down at work locations where the union bulletin boards are not glass-enclosed. The local union has to date not filed the affidavit required by Article II, Section 4(e), “attesting that the notice was posted as required, identifying the bulletin board sites at which it was posted and the name and title of the individual with responsibility for posting the notice at each site.”
While we have declined to find Rules violations where a required posting is a day late at a single location, Williamson & Payne, 2005 EAD 20 (October 31, 2005), a local union’s failure to post at multiple worksites that employ a large number of members is prima facie proof of bad faith that deprives members and potential candidates of substantial rights. Here, the protestors do not claim that they have been prejudiced by the delayed posting. Indeed, they timely submitted to our office a detailed comment on the proposed plan. Nonetheless, because of potential candidates at several work locations may be unaware that a local union plan has been submitted, we GRANT this protest. In balancing the competing claims of the protestors and the local union, we place emphasis on the local union’s failure to present affidavit proof of posting, as required by the Rules. Remedy When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he
“may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.” Article XIII, Section
4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the
nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering
with the election process. We direct Local Union 407 to post or repost notice of submission of its local union plan on all union bulletin boards under its jurisdiction. The local union shall complete this posting on the form attached to this decision by Tuesday, November 15, 2005. The notice shall state that members are permitted until Wednesday, November 30, 2005 to submit comments on the plan to our office. By Friday, November 18, 2005, the local union shall submit an affidavit to our office that complies with Article II, Section 4(e). Because we have not yet approved the local union plan for Local Union 407, we order no further remedy. A decision of the Election Supervisor takes immediate effect unless stayed. Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996). 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 Supervisor in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal and shall be served upon: Kenneth Conboy 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, 1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 1400, Washington, D.C. 20007-5135, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing. Richard W. Mark cc: Kenneth Conboy [IF YOU POST THIS NOTICE ON UNION LETTERHEAD, THE NAMES OF
LOCAL UNION OFFICERS, NOTICE OF LOCAL UNION PLAN SUBMISSION FORM
|
|
|
