 |
|
|
|
IN RE: RICHARD DECKER, Protestor. Richard Decker, a member of GCC Local Union M898, 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”). He alleged that the local union violated the Rules by coercing a member in the exercise of his rights to second a nomination for delegate. Election Supervisor representative David Reilly investigated this protest. Findings of Fact The protest alleged Stanley Moore was coerced by union representatives to refrain from seconding the nomination of the protestor for delegate to the 2006 IBT convention. Investigation showed that the protestor, Richard Decker, attended the January 10 nomination meeting with another member. That member nominated Decker for delegate, and Decker accepted the nomination. However, no one seconded the nomination, and Decker requested that the meeting be held open until he could produce a qualified member to second the nomination. The chair of the nomination meeting, Rick Bullock, agreed. Decker then left the meeting and went to work, arriving early for the second shift. There, he asked Stanley Moore, a first shift employee, to go to the union hall following his shift to second the nomination. Moore agreed. After his shift, Moore went to the hall and found the nomination meeting still open. Aside from Decker, no one had been nominated for delegate by the time Moore arrived, and Decker’s nomination still required a second in order to be valid. Moore did not second Decker’s nomination. Instead, Moore was present when Bullock was nominated for delegate, and he seconded that nomination. Moore told our investigator that, when he arrived, only three or four others were present. The group conversed easily about several topics, including work, the nominations process, and the union’s responsibility in the event no one was nominated to run for delegate. Someone asked whether the local was required to send a delegate to the convention. Bullock stated that he did not know the answer to that question, but said he would volunteer for the job if the union had to send someone. At that, Gene Lecher nominated Bullock. Moore then stood and said he had changed his mind about seconding Decker’s nomination and now was seconding Bullock’s nomination instead. Moore explained this reversal to our investigator by stating that he believed Bullock was better suited than Decker to the position of convention delegate. As Moore walked toward the door, local president Tim O’Connor called after him, asking if he was certain that he did not also wish to second Decker’s nomination. Moore replied that he was. The nomination meeting closed a short time later. Decker’s nomination failed for lack of a second. Bullock was the sole nominee whose nomination was perfected, and, as he was unopposed, was declared elected. Protestor Decker, not present during the critical portion of the nomination meeting, surmised that Moore was pressured or coerced into abandoning his intention to second Decker’s nomination. Moore denied any such improper influence. In the alternative, Decker asserted that if Moore was not coerced, he was improperly persuaded not to second Decker’s nomination with the argument that an election would cost the local union money. Moore denies that the financial cost of an election was never discussed or referenced. Further, the statements of Moore and O’Connor are consistent that Moore was told of his right to second both candidates for delegate, and Moore chose only to second Bullock. Analysis Article II, Section 5(h) of the Rules provides:
Article VII, Section 11(g) prohibits “[r]etaliation 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 the Rules. On the facts presented, we find that Moore was not threatened, coerced or pressured to abandon his intention to second the nomination of Decker. Rather, we conclude that Moore decided freely, and on his own, to second the nomination of Bullock and not to second the nomination of Decker. 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. 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 DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED): Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel Sarah Riger, Staff Attorney David J. Hoffa Barbara Harvey Ken Paff Judith Brown Chomsky Stefan Ostrach Richard Decker Tim O’Connor, President David F. Reilly, Esq. Jeffrey Ellison
|
|
|
