ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
|
IN RE: BRIAN A. LYTLE,
Protestor.
|
11 Elec. App. 51 (KC)
ORDER
|
This matter is an appeal from the Election Supervisor's decision 2011 ESD 282 issued June 23, 2011. The appeal was submitted by Fred O. Towe, Esq. on behalf of Local 114 and its principle officer Dennis Arnold.
A hearing was held before me on June 29, 2011. The following persons were heard by way of teleconference: Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., for the Election Supervisor, Joe F. Childers Investigative Officer, Jeff Lohman, Esq. of Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe LLP on behalf of Local Union 414 and Dennis Arnold. The protester Brian Lytle also participated in the hearing.
The undisputed facts of this case establish that the principle officer of Local 114 Dennis Arnold orchestrated the confiscation of Brian Lytle's union issued lap computer and ultimately his termination as one of the Local's Business Agent, after Lytle told Arnold that he was going to be a candidate for delegate to the IBT Convention, and later a candidate against Arnold for election as principle officer of Local 114.
The Election Supervisor found that this conduct constituted impermissible retaliation for protected political activity under the Election Rules.
The Local and Arnold asserted in the Election Supervisor's investigation that the protest was not timely filed, that the grounds for termination were meritorious business considerations, and that the Supreme Court's decision in Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 (1982) confers rights that protect what they insist were non-retaliatory policy grounds for Lytle's termination.
The filing deadlines under the Election Rules are, as we have noted many times, prudential and not jurisdictional. In cases of asserted retaliation, and indeed in many less serious specifications of alleged election misconduct, we have waived the timeliness defect, and do so now again.
On the Local's and Arnold's proffered, non-retaliatory reasons for Lytle's discharge, the Election Supervisor found these to be pretextual, and I decline to disturb that finding based upon the record before me.
With respect to the Finnegan argument, we have recently noted that that case "does not shelter" actions designed to subvert the union democracy goals of the Consent Decree. In Re: Gegare (After Remand), 10 Elec. App. 3 (KC).
Accordingly, the decision of the Election Supervisor is in all respects affirmed.
SO ORDERED:
__s/Kenneth Conboy_____________
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Dated: June 30, 2011