IN RE: DALE PEIRCE and CHRIS MUHS, Protestors.
Protest Decision 2006 ESD 48
Issued: January 17, 2006
OES Case No. P-06-057-010906-FW
Dale Peirce and Chris Muhs, members of Local Union 324, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2005-2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protest alleged that the local union misled them as to the date for the nomination meeting, thereby causing them to miss the opportunity to be nominated for convention delegate.
Election Supervisor representative Christine Mrak investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact
Protestor Peirce asserts that, on November 2, he requested and was given a copy of the local union plan for the election of delegates and alternate delegates. The plan stated that the date for the nomination meeting was Monday, January 9. Peirce and Muhs stated that they relied on that date in making their nomination plans. Thus, they arranged to take January 9 off work to attend the meeting, and they lined up members to attend with them who would nominate and second them for the position of delegate.
The nomination meeting was held on January 5, not on January 9. As a result, Peirce and Muhs missed the meeting and were not nominated.
On September 22, the local union submitted the local union plan to our office for review and approval. The plan was approved on October 24, with a revision in the date for the nomination meeting from January 9 to January 5. Once the plan was approved, the local union posted the plan summary on all union bulletin boards under the jurisdiction of Local Union 324. Further, the local union posted on union bulletin boards and published in Oregon Teamster the notice of nomination meeting. The Oregon Teamster is sent to each member of Local Union 324 (and other members in Oregon) by first-class mail, and the protesters acknowledge receiving this publication. Both the posted plan summary and the posted and published notice of nomination meeting notified members that the nomination meeting would take place on January 5.
Peirce and Muhs conceded to our investigator that the notices were properly and timely posted and published. However, they stated that they did not review the notices closely because they had reviewed the local union plan document itself, which contained the January 9 date.
Analysis
Article II, Section 4(a) of the Rules requires each local union to "submit a proposed Local Union Plan for approval by the Election Supervisor." The plan must include, among other things, "the proposed date(s), time(s) and place(s) of the nomination meeting(s)." Id., Section 4(b)(2).
Once the plan is submitted for approval, the local union must post a notice advising its members that a proposed plan has been submitted and that union members have the rights to obtain the plan and to submit comments on it. Id., Section 4(c), (d) and (e).
The Rules further provide that "[t]he Election Supervisor shall review each proposed Local Union Plan and approve it, with such modifications as the Election Supervisor may determine are necessary and appropriate." Id., Section 4(a).
Once the plan is approved, the local union must post a copy of the plan summary that the Election Supervisor has prepared on all local union bulletin boards "and shall maintain such posting through the entire delegate nomination and election period." Id., Section 4(g). The plan summary includes the date of the nomination meeting.
The Rules also require the local union to mail notice of the nomination meeting "to each member at his/her last known address by first class mail at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the first nomination meeting." Id., Section 5(d).
We find that Local Union 324 posted the local union plan summary and mailed the notice of nomination meeting as required by the Rules. These notices provided each Local 324 member with timely and correct advance notice of the date and time of the nomination meeting.
The protestors contend that the local union misled them as to the date of the nomination meeting by providing the proposed local union plan that contained the January 9 meeting date. The protestors misconstrue the requirements of the Rules.
Only one local union plan was prepared by Local Union 324. That plan, delineated by the Rules as a "proposed" plan, put forward January 9 as the date the nominations meeting would occur. The Election Supervisor did not approve of January 9 and instead approved the plan for Local Union 324 that included a nominations meeting on January 5.
On November 2, when the protestors requested a copy of the local union plan, the local union produced the only plan it had, that being the one it had submitted to our office on September 22. The protestors were not privileged to rely on the contents of that proposed plan for any of the particulars of the running of the election for delegates and alternate delegates, for the plan was merely the local union's proposal as to how the election should be conducted. The Election Supervisor's approval changed some aspects of the union's proposal, and all the details of the approved plan, including the changes the Election Supervisor made, were reflected in the plan summary posted on all union boards; the change in the date for the nomination meeting was announced for a second time in the notice of nomination meeting posted on all union bulletin boards and published in Oregon Teamster sent to each member by first class mail. The purpose of the postings and mailing was to insure that all members were advised of the details for conducting the election of delegates and alternate delegates. The protestors ignored these notices at their peril.
The Rules have not been violated on the facts of this case, and we therefore cannot provide a remedy to the protestors. For these 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 Supervisor 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 the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 1400, Washington, D.C. 20007-5135, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2006 ESD 48
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2198
Email: braymond@teamster.org
Sarah Riger, Staff Attorney
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2198
Email: sriger@teamster.org
David J. Hoffa
Hoffa 2006
30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 324
Farmington Hills, MI 48834
David@hoffapllc.com
Barbara Harvey
645 Griswold Street
Suite 3060
Detroit, MI 48226
barbaraharvey@comcast.net
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210
ken@tdu.org
Judith Brown Chomsky
P.O. Box 29726
Elkins Park, PA 19027
jchomsky@igc.org
Stefan Ostrach
1863 Pioneer Parkway East, #217
Springfield, OR 97477-3907
saostrach@gmail.com
Dale Peirce
1407 Trent Avenue, North
Keizer, OR 97303
peirce@peoplepc.com
Chris Muhs
6685 McLeod Lane, NE
Keizer, OR 97303
crmuhs@netzero.com
Cliff Baker, Secretary-Treasurer
IBT Local Union 324
2686 Portland Road, NE
Salem, OR 97303
Christine M. Mrak
2357 Hobart Avenue, SW
Seattle, WA 98116
cmm@wmblaw.net
Jeffrey Ellison
510 Highland Avenue, #325
Milford, MI 48381
EllisonEsq@aol.com