IN RE: MARIA DELGADO-ROBLES,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 91
Issued: January 23, 2001
OEA Case No. PR121201ME
Maria Delgado-Robles, a member of Local 115, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protestor alleges that Local 115 and her employer Heraus Electro-Nite Company ("HENC") colluded to lay her off in retaliation for her support of former Local 115 principal officer John Morris, and in order to prevent her participation in the Local 115 delegate election.
Election Administrator representatives William B. Kane and William W. Thompson II investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
HENC laid Delgado-Robles off on November 3, 2000. She claims that the local union colluded with her employer in implementing this layoff, and that the local union failed to fairly represent her in challenging the layoff, based on her opposition to Local 115 president and delegate candidate James Smith, Jr.
Delgado-Robles claims that her layoff was not conducted according to seniority, and that it is not justified because the plant is now working overtime. In support of her seniority claim, she notes that the shop steward's son, who has less seniority than her, was not laid off. No evidence was offered linking the protestor's layoff with the delegate election at Local 115. Delgado-Robles, however, noted her past support for former Local 115 principal officer John Morris, who has been removed from office.
Ms. Delgado-Robles's eligibility in the Local 115 delegate election will not be affected by her layoff, since she cannot be issued a withdrawal card due to the layoff until May 3, 2001, while the local's delegate candidate nomination meeting was held on January 7, 2001, and the election will be conducted on March 6.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the protestor's layoff was improperly motivated under the Rules. The collective bargaining agreement provides for notice to the local union of any planned layoffs. Pursuant to this provision, notice was given to the local on October 30, 2000 that five employees, including the protestor, would be laid off on November 3. The layoff was justified by a slowdown in business, which HENC has experienced as a supplier to the steel industry, which itself has experienced layoffs recently. Those laid off were selected by seniority, with only two skilled mechanics being passed over for layoff, as provided for in Article XXI, Sections 1 and 17 of the labor agreement and past practice. The protestor is an unskilled employee. Moreover, she is fourth from the bottom of the seniority list, and even if the less senior mechanics had been laid off, she would still have been laid off with them.
At the time of the layoff, shop steward Leo Reilly explained to Delgado-Robles her rights to bumping, vacation pay and benefits. She admitted that she could not do the work of the less senior mechanics. Subsequently, the protestor went to Local 115's hall with her husband, a Local 115 steward at another shop. Assistant Trustees John Schmitt and Joseph Waldron explained her rights and the basis for her layoff. She sought a local union investigation of various allegations regarding the layoff, and one was conducted. By letter of November 29, 2000, she was notified of the results of the investigation. This letter again advised her of the contractual basis for her layoff. Delgado-Robles never challenged the findings spelled out in the letter, and never asked to file a grievance. Also, contrary to her claims, the son of the shop steward does not have less seniority than the protestor.
In conclusion, there is no evidence here to support the protestor's allegations of a Rules violation. Delgado-Robles' layoff appears to have been implemented consistent with the collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, it appears that the local union fairly represented her with respect to this matter.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
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 Administrator 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
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
Suite 1000
885 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Fax: 212-751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 727 15th Street NW, Tenth Floor, Washington, DC 20005, all within the time period prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Election Administrator
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2001 EAD 91
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA UPS NEXT DAY AIR:
Patrick Szymanski
IBT General Counsel
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
J. Douglas Korney
Korney & Heldt
30700 Telegraph Road
Suite 1551
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Barbara Harvey
Penobscot Building
Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
Suite 800
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach
110 Mayfair
Eugene, OR 97404
Maria Delgado-Robles
8362 Holman Ave.
Pennsauken, NJ 08110
Heraus Electro-Nite Co.
9901 Blue Grass Road
Philadelphia, PA 19114
IBT Local 115
2833 Cottman Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19149