IN RE: DELBERT VIEHLAND,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 341
Issued: May 4, 2001
OEA Case No. PR040411SO
Delbert Viehland, a delegate candidate on the R.U.N. slate at Local 682, 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"). He alleges that Local 682 secretary-treasurer Thomas Renaud, Sr. supports the U.N.I.T.E. slate running against the R.U.N. slate and conducted a political meeting within a contract meeting.
Election Administrator representative Dolores Hall investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
Viehland is a driver and job steward at Breckenridge Materials, an employer of about 100 Local 682 members. During Summer 2000, Breckenridge trained a woman to be a driver. The company asked Viehland to test drive the woman to determine if she was ready to drive alone. After the test drive, Viehland advised Breckenridge that she was not ready, so the company trained her for several more days. Viehland took the woman out for a second test drive and stated she was worse the second time than the first. He reported this to the company; the woman was fired.
The woman filed EEOC charges against Breckenridge. Two other female applicants who Breckenridge decided not to hire also became parties to litigation against the company. One of them, Pam Clifford, is a Local 682 member. She was called as a witness because she had previous driving and ready-mix experience when she was not hired by Breckenridge. Thus, Clifford was present in the courtroom when Viehland testified as to his actions involving the woman who originally filed charges against Breckenridge. The EEOC suit was settled in favor of the charging party with whom Viehland test drove.
On March 21, 2001, at a regular monthly Local 682 membership meeting, Clifford read from a prepared speech, reporting on the settlement to the members when the floor was opened by Local 682's president Ronald Wurst. Clifford spoke about the testimony provided by Viehland at the trial, without mentioning his name, charging him with lying in favor of the company. Prior to the meeting, Clifford showed her speech to the local's vice president, and he advised her not to mention any names when reporting on the suit. In her speech, Clifford referred to Viehland as "the shop steward" or "this person who is running for election." Viehland was present at this meeting, heard Clifford's speech, and did not protest.
On April 2, 2001, Local 682 held a divisional meeting in St. Charles County for the purpose of voting on three different contracts, one of which was a ready-mix contract. This meeting was chaired by Renaud, who had heard of Clifford's speech at the membership meeting the previous month. Clifford asked to be recognized to speak. Renaud cautioned her about making a political speech and, prior to allowing her to speak, obtained from her a promise not to engage in politics. Clifford stated she did not have her written speech at this meeting, but was speaking extemporaneously. She admits to "going off on a tangent," but did not mention Viehland's name. Clifford again alleged that Viehland lied in his testimony in favor of the company. She charged that he was not the person they wanted to represent the Local. When one of the members objected to her speech, Renaud gaveled Clifford down.
At the close of the meeting, Renaud sent everyone outside and then called each back individually to vote on the contract. Clifford stated that when she was outside, members asked her whom she was talking about, and she identified Viehland. She stated that outside the Union hall, she was not restricted in her speech. Another Breckenridge employee present at the meeting confirmed that Clifford did not mention Viehland's name while speaking during the meeting, but did identify him when she was outside.
Viehland did not protest Clifford's speech, which he heard in person on March 21, during which she did not identify him by name. He specifically protests that in her second speech on April 2, she mentioned his name in reporting on the lawsuit. Viehland was not present at the second meeting but relied on another member's assertion that Clifford called him by name. This allegation, however, could not be corroborated. Further, Clifford was cautioned prior to her speech not to engage in political rhetoric. Both she, the union official chairing the meeting, and others present agree that she was gaveled down when she strayed into the political area.
Analysis
First, with respect to the March 21, 2001 speech, we find the protest untimely. Article XIII, Section 2 of the Rules requires the filing of pre-election protests within two working days of the day when the protestor reasonably should have become aware of the event giving rise to the protest. The April 4, 2001 filing of Viehland's protest came 10 business days (14 calendar days) after the speech. Therefore, Viehland waived his right to protest the March 21 speech. See Shifflett, 2001 EAD 147 (February 8, 2001), aff'd, 01 EAM 34 (February 21, 2001) (holding that protest was not timely when filed nine days after event giving rise to protest).
Furthermore, we find no evidence that Renaud or the local union sanctioned or prompted Clifford's April 2 speech. On the contrary, it appears that Clifford received a warning before that speech not to make it political. The topic of Clifford's speech, an EEOC settlement involving a Local 682 employer, is a matter of general concern to the local union. Importantly, when Clifford inserted politics in her speech by asserting that Viehland should not represent the local union, she was gaveled down. We find no evidence that the local union or Renaud participated improperly in connection with Clifford's speech.
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 (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 341
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 682
5730 Elizabeth Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63110
Ronald J. Wurst
IBT Local 682
5730 Elizabeth Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63110
Thomas Renaud, Sr.
IBT Local 682
5730 Elizabeth Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63110
Delbert Viehland
P.O. Box 522
Cedar Hill, MO 63016
Dolores Hall
1000 Belmont Place
Metairie, LA 70001