IN RE: JOHN G. SLADEK,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 290
Issued: March 31, 2001
OEA Case No. PR030411MW
John Sladek, a Local 734 member and delegate candidate on the Sladek Reform Team, 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 James DeHaan, who has been hired by Local 734 to run its delegate election, improperly favors the Meidel Unity slate, which is comprised of current officers, including Local 734's president Brian Meidel.
Election Administrator representative Nancy Golen investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
Local 734 hired DeHaan to conduct the nomination of candidates for delegate and alternate delegate and to conduct Local 734's subsequent election. On March 4, 2001, DeHaan held the local's nomination meeting. DeHaan first read aloud the names of candidates on the Sladek Reform Team, which had submitted nominations in writing. DeHaan then requested nominations from the floor, at which time the Meidel Unity slate was nominated. Sladek told our investigator that once the Meidel Unity slate had been nominated, DeHaan said, "All that's left is to decide ballot position." Sladek did not recall DeHaan asking for additional nominations or closing the nominations. DeHaan stated that he followed the "standard process" for nomination meetings, including opening and closing nominations for delegate candidates and for alternate delegate candidates.
Before the meeting, DeHaan received completed slate declaration forms from both slates. After the nominations, DeHaan decided to use the two forms to determine ballot placement. DeHaan stated that he placed the slate declaration forms face down on the table in front of him and announced that ballot positions would now be determined. According to DeHaan, he announced that whichever slate was selected first would have first position on the ballot. Sladek did not recall DeHaan providing an explanation of the process as it occurred.
DeHaan then called forward a member, whom DeHaan says he did not know, from the back of the room. The member, Rich Tyszko, told our investigator that he did not know DeHaan, referring to him as "the man who was running the meeting." Tyszko stated he thought he had been selected because, unlike other meeting attendees, he was not wearing a Local 734 jacket. Sladek does not know Tyszko. We credit DeHaan and Tyszko's uncontroverted statements that they did not know each other before the nomination meeting.
Sladek also alleges that DeHaan arranged Tyszko's selection of the Meidel Unity slate declaration form to ensure its position on the ballot. As proof, Sladek alleges that the two slate declaration forms were already present and lying face down on the table when the meeting began. When Tyszko was selecting a form, according to Sladek, DeHaan used a pen to point at one of the slate declaration forms. Tyszko selected the other form. Although DeHaan admits that he held a pen at the time, he denies using it as a pointer or indicator, in any way, of which form to pick. Sladek could not provide a witness to support his allegations, stating that he was the only representative of the opposition in attendance. Sladek raised no objections at the meeting, telling our investigator that he thought he could protect his rights by filing a protest.
Analysis
Sladek alleges that the selection of Tyszko by DeHaan was part of a plan to place Meidel first on the ballot. Sladek also alleges that DeHaan arranged for the Meidel Unity slate to appear first on the ballot. Sladek, however, failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations. Tyszko and DeHaan did not know one another before the nomination meeting. Moreover, apart from his own view of DeHaan's conduct, Sladek has offered no evidence supporting his claims of bias.
For the foregoing reasons, 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 (fax: 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 290
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY AIRBORNE EXPRESS):
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 734
300 S. Ashland Ave.
Room 306
Chicago, IL 60607
James DeHaan
448 Maincentre
Northville, MI 48167
John G. Sladek
2613 W. 75th St.
Woodridge, IL 60517
Dennis M. Sarsany
1829 Eddy St.
Chicago, IL 60657