 |
|
|
|
IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE DELEGATE CANDIDATES OF LOCAL
UNION 726 Vanessa Bankhead, a member of Local Union 726, filed an eligibility 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 all candidates nominated for delegate and alternate delegate at Local Union 726 were ineligible to run for those positions. The protest further alleged that all persons who nominated and who seconded the nominations of the candidates for delegate and alternate delegate were ineligible to nominate and to second such nominations. Election Supervisor representatives Steven R. Newmark and Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest. Findings of Fact and Analysis At the nomination meeting held January 18, 2006, Thomas Clair, John Falzone, Kenneth Brantley, John Hurley, and Anthony Fiori were nominated for delegate and Linda Cruz and Michael Melone for alternate delegate on the Fair and Equity slate. Donald Bellheimer, Michael Edwards, Carlos Sanchez, Ray Erickson and Tres Peel were nominated for delegate and Victor Tanco for alternate delegate on the F.E.F.A. slate. George Buccieri, Brian Duffy, Paul Alvarez, Tommie Spencer and William Wade were nominated for delegate on the Every Teamster Counts slate. Finally, Vincent Tenuto, James Glaesser, Mary King, Joe Arce, Joe Vercillo, Ruby Franklin, and Tom Respondi were nominated as independent candidates for delegate, and Patrick Johnston was nominated as an independent candidate for alternate delegate. Protestor Bankhead alleged that these candidates “may be ineligible … due to the 24 consecutive month rule.” The only evidence Bankhead produced to support her sweeping challenge to each candidate for every position in the delegate and alternate delegate election was that she “never saw” these members before at union meetings. Article VI, Section 1 of the Rules, provides that “to be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate or International Officer position, one must: (1) be a member in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one’s dues paid to the Local union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments; [and] (2) be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination.” Article VI, Section 3 of the Rules bars enforcement of “any meeting attendance requirement as a condition for establishing one’s eligibility to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate or International Officer position.” TITAN records demonstrated that each candidate paid dues by check-off authorization for the 24-month eligibility period. In rare instances, monthly dues for some candidates were not posted to TITAN until a month after the month in which they were due. Had these candidates been cash-dues payers, these late payments would have constituted interruptions in continuous good standing and rendered them ineligible to office. However, a member on dues check-off retains his good standing even if his dues were remitted late or not at all, provided he gave a check-off authorization and had sufficient earnings in the month from which dues could have been deducted. Dunn, E9 (October 31, 1995); Reynozo, 2005 ESD 18 (October 25, 2005); aff’d, 06 EAM 05 (January 4, 2006). For the candidates for whom TITAN records showed late posting of monthly dues payments, investigation demonstrated that these members had sufficient earnings in the months for which no dues were posted to fund those dues. Accordingly, they do not suffer a break in continuous good standing as the result of these late dues postings. In sum, our thorough investigation found that all candidates for delegate and alternate delegate maintained continuous good standing for the full 24-month eligibility period, despite the protestor’s assertion that she “never saw” them before. To be eligible to nominate or second a nomination, a member must be “in good standing, … with his/her dues paid through the month prior to the nominations meeting.” Article II, Section 5(h). TITAN records for all nominators and seconders demonstrated that they all paid dues by check-off authorization. TITAN and employment records demonstrated either that these members had dues deducted from their wages in December, the month preceding the month of the nomination meeting, or had sufficient wages in that month from which dues could have been deducted. Accordingly, each nominator and seconder was qualified under the Rules to perform that function. For these reasons, we find all candidates nominated either for delegate or alternate delegate in Local Union 726 to be ELIGIBLE for those positions. Accordingly, we DENY the protest in all respects. We conclude with these observations. Article XIII, Section 1 of the Rules grants each member the right to “file a protest with the Election Supervisor alleging noncompliance with these Rules.” However, “it shall be the burden of the complainant to present evidence that a violation has occurred.” Here, the sum of protestor Bankhead’s evidence was her bare claim that the candidates were ineligible because she “never saw” them before. She leveled this protest at all candidates, including incumbent local union officers and business agents who have appeared at local union meetings for years. To chase down this broad claim, our office expended considerable resources – funded with Teamster dues dollars – to investigate the dues payment and employment histories of 26 candidates for delegate and alternate delegate and another score of members who nominated and seconded nominations. Contradicting the protestor’s claim that all candidates, nominators and seconders were ineligible, we concluded they were all eligible. Under these circumstances, we understate the case when we say that the protestor’s assertion that these candidates were ineligible was irresponsible. 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 DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED): Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel Sarah Riger, Staff Attorney David J. Hoffa, Esq. Barbara Harvey Ken Paff Judith Brown Chomsky Stephen Ostrach Thomas P. Clair John Falzone Kenneth Brantley John Hurley Linda Cruz Anthony Fiori Michael Melone L.T. Griffin, Jr. George Buccieri Kenneth Brantley Joe LaRucci John T. Cichocki Jim Glaesser William Kazlauskas Don Bellheimer Tommie Spencer Ruby Franklin David McKinney Harry Wambaja Peter Bonamici, Jr. Glenn Williams George Onuszkanyez Robert J. Esposito Efrain Perez Jose Arce Darryl W. Ivery Joey Vercillo Chris Iandolo Raymond Erickson Vince Tenuto Mike Marcatante Tres Peel Jose Feliciano William Wade Joe Loporchio John T. Geraci Paul Alvarez Joe Alvarez Tyrone Nelson Patrick Johnston Richard Green Felmon Smith George A. Sever Martin Zamora Brian Duffy Oscar Polanco Joseph Colello, Jr. Angelo Fata John Fasso Roderick J. Myles Carlos Sanchez Tommie Respondi Mary King Richard T. Green Mike Edwards Kevin Kaiser Thomas P. Clair Vanessa Bankhead James Green Bill Broberg Steven R. Newmark Jeffrey Ellison
|
|
|
