Protest Decisions

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2021 ESD 50, which addresses a pre-election protest filed by Ryan Yoshida, Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 996, was issued on February 2, 2021 (OES Case No. E-065-012821-FW) by the Election Supervisor.  The protest alleged that Barry Rice and Sii Maiava were ineligible for nomination in Local Union 996’s delegates and alternate delegates election. 
  

On February 2nd, the Election Supervisor denied the protest because neither Mr. Rice nor Ms. Maiava maintained 24 months of continuous good standing to be eligible to run in accordance with the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).  On February 4, 2021, Mr. Rice appealed the decision.  On February 5, 2021, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a telephonic hearing for February 9, 2021. 

On February 8, 2021, the Office of Election Supervisor submitted supplemental written argument in support of its position.  On February 8th, Mr. Rice moved to compel production of additional evidence from Local 996 in support of his appeal and to postpone the hearing while he reviewed the materials.  The Election Supervisor submitted a response opposing Mr. Rice’s motion.  After carefully considering the submissions from both parties, I denied Mr. Rice’s motion because the materials he sought were not relevant to the issue on appeal and I found no other compelling reason to delay the hearing.  In addition, absent extraordinary circumstances, a party may not submit new evidence or claims on appeal that were not presented or addressed in the original protest.  See O’Brien-Zuckerman 2021, 2020 EAM 3 at p. 5 (September 4, 2020).      
   

A telephonic hearing was held on February 9, 2021.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq. and Michael Miller on behalf of the Office of the Election Supervisor; Barry Rice on his own behalf; and Ryan Yoshida on behalf of Local Union 996.  Ms. Maiava also participated in the hearing.

Decision on the Eligibility of Mr. Rice

Mr. Rice is a member of Local 996 and intended to run for a Convention delegate position in the local’s upcoming election.  According to the Rules, in order to be eligible to run in that election he must “…be a member in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one’s dues paid to the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said positon with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments[.]”  See Article VI, Section (1)(a) of the Rules; See also Article II, Section 4(a)(1) and Article X, Section 5(c) of the IBT Constitution.   According to these requirements, Mr. Rice must be a member in continuous good standing – with all dues timely paid – from January 2019 through December 2020 to be eligible to run.

An examination of the dues records showed that Mr. Rice made timely dues payments from January 2019 through May 2019 in compliance with the eligibility requirements by check-off authorization.  In or around May 2019, Mr. Rice suffered an injury and was out of work for approximately one year.  During this time period, Mr. Rice received workers’ compensation benefits, however, the evidence showed that he did not make timely dues payments between June 2019 and June 2020.  Accordingly, Mr. Rice is ineligible to run as a delegate because he did not maintain continuous good standing for a period of 24 months.  See Eligibility of Barzola, E-124 (March 24, 1996); Eligibility of Rogers et. al., E-102 (March 5, 1996). 

Mr. Rice contends that he should nevertheless be eligible to run in the election because, as a dues check-off employee, the Local Union was required to timely notify him that his dues payments had lapsed so that he could have corrected the issue and maintained good standing.  See Article X, Section 5(c).  However, notice to check-off employees is required when members actually have earnings from work performed during the month when dues could have been deducted.  Id.  During the year that Mr. Rice received workers’ compensation benefits, he did not work at his employer.  As a result, there were no check-off dues to deduct from his earnings.  Thus, the notice requirement for check-off employees articulated in Article X, Section 5(c) is not applicable.  Under the circumstances here, to maintain continuous good standing while he was out on leave, Mr. Rice was required to pay dues directly to the Local Union.

Decision on the Eligibility of Ms. Maiava

            Ms. Maiva also appeared at the hearing to challenge the protest decision, however, the Election Supervisor objected to her participation claiming that she did not file an appropriate appeal before me.  According to the Rules, appeals shall be made in writing and shall specify the basis for the appeal.  See Article XII, Section 2(i).  Ms. Maiava did not file an appeal in compliance with the Rules.  However, as I noted at the hearing, had she filed an appropriate appeal, her claim would have failed for the same reasons discussed above.  Ms. Maiava had an interruption in her dues payments and did not maintain 24 months of continuous good standing in order to be eligible to run in the delegates election.

            Accordingly, the Election Supervisor’s decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED,

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         February 11, 2021



DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):