IN RE: WALT DEMINSKI,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 229
Issued: March 12, 2001
OEA Case No. PR022113ME
Walt Deminski, a Local 115 member and alternate delegate candidate on the Teamsters United slate, 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"). Deminski alleges that supporters of the Local 115 Members slate engaged in surveillance at a Teamsters United slate fundraising event and photographed the cars of members who attended the event.
Election Administrator representative William W. Thompson II investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
Local 115 held its ballot count on March 6, 2001. Four slates competed. The Teamsters United slate and the Local 115 Members slate ran as full slates. The remaining two slates, the Members First slate and the Petrites slate, were partial slates. Members could vote, among other ways, for both a partial slate and individual candidates running on another slate or as independent candidates.
The Teamsters United slate held a Beef & Beer fundraiser at 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, February 17, 2001 at the William Penn Fire House (the "fire hall"). In advance of the event, Teamsters United slate candidates and supporters posted maps to the event. The maps included ticket and event information but did not indicate who was holding the fundraiser. At certain locations, the Teamsters United slate also posted blown-up copies of tickets that clearly identified the Teamsters United Slate with the event. In other locations, the blown-up tickets were never posted because they believed that supporters of the opposing slates would have torn them down. Teamsters United slate delegate candidate Dennis DiCataldo identified Drexel University as one such location.
It is undisputed that during the fundraiser, Local 115 Members slate supporters Leo Reilly, Paul Van der Woude, and Mike Martin showed up at the fire hall parking lot. Deminski alleges that the Local 115 Members slate supporters actively engaged in surveillance and photographed attendees' cars. He stated that two of the Beef & Beer attendees-Harry Hawkins and another individual-came into the fire hall and told him that Reilly and others were in the parking lot "taking pictures" of cars. Hawkins and Deminski then went outside and saw the Local 115 Members slate supporters leaving.
Hawkins said that he initially saw Reilly and another person walking around the side of the fire hall. He did not see them holding or carrying anything. After Hawkins parked his car in the lot, he saw the Local 115 Members slate supporters drive past him and leave the area. As Hawkins entered the hall, he met up with DiCataldo, and they told Deminski what they had seen. Hawkins and Deminski then went outside. Hawkins avers that they saw the car with the Local 115 Members slate supporters reenter the parking area and stop a few feet from the vehicle of a Drexel University employee. Hawkins alleges that he saw a flash. He immediately asked Deminski whether he saw it, but Deminski was unsure. The vehicle was not seen again that evening.
The respondents allege that they did not engage in surveillance or take photographs at the Beef & Beer. Van der Woude claims that he saw the event map on a union bulletin board at Drexel University, where he works, and informed Reilly about the event. Because the Local 115 Members slate supporters did not know who was sponsoring the event and the Members First slate is a partial slate, the Local 115 Members slate supporters decided to leaflet attendees. As they entered the lot at about 8:00 p.m., they saw DiCataldo. Once parked, Reilly and Van der Woude walked toward the fire hall. Van der Woude stated that they looked in a window, realized the crowd was Teamsters United slate supporters, and decided to leave because leafleting would have been a waste of time.
Reilly and Van der Woude both stated that they were at the event only once during the evening. Both also assert that they did not engage in surveillance and that they had no photographic or video equipment of any kind.
Analysis
As we said in Richards, 2000 EAD 27 (September 27, 2000), aff'd, 00 EAM 8 (October 23, 2000),
The Rules, at Article VII, Section 11(a), guarantee to members the "right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions." Article VII, Section 11(g) reinforces this basic right through its prohibition of "[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 this or any other Article of the Rules..."
These rights are fundamental to the conduct of a fair and open election. A fair and open election is the "central purpose" of the Consent Decree. U.S. v. IBT, 948 F.2d 98 (2nd Cir. 1991). Acts of "coercion, interference or harassment of members in the exercise of these [are] forbidden. Surveillance is one of those acts." Giacumbo, P210 (December 5, 1995). See also Pollack, P8 (October 29, 1990), aff'd, 90 EAM 8.
The facts do not reveal any substantial evidence that the charged parties went to the Teamsters United slate fundraiser to engage in surveillance or intimidation of the participants. Hawkins did not see the charged parties carrying any objects, and the only allegation of a camera "flash" was not corroborated at the time by Deminski, as related by Hawkins.
While it is conceivable that the Local 115 Members slate supporters knew that the Teamsters United slate sponsored the fundraiser, the protestor has offered no objective evidence to support this conjecture. On the contrary, Teamsters United slate delegate candidate DiCataldo confirmed that he never posted at Drexel a document connecting the event to the Teamsters United slate.
For the foregoing reasons, 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 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 (facsimile: 202-454-1501), all within the time 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 229
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
IBT Local 115
2833 Cottman Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19149
Walt Deminski
6517 Senator Lane
Bensalem, PA 19020
Leo Reilly
7637 Roosevelt Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19152
Paul Van der Woude
1105 Rhawn St.
Philadelphia, PA 19111
Mike Martin
6918 Revere St.
Philadelphia, PA 19149
William B. Kane
242 Old Haymaker Rd.
Monroeville, PA 15146