IN RE: GLENN TEOLIS, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2006 ESD 184
Issued: May 17, 2006
OES Case No. P-06-147-021406-NE
Glenn Teolis, a member and independent delegate candidate of Local Union 251, 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 Stuart B. Mundy, secretary-treasurer and delegate candidate of the local union, threatened and took retaliatory action against Teolis for exercising his political rights to run for delegate, in violation of the Rules.
Election Supervisor representative David F. Reilly investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact
The protest contends that, beginning on January 1, 2006, Teolis had a series of conversations with Joseph Barios, local union president, in which Barios warned him that principal officer Mundy had stated he would make sure Teolis never worked again if Teolis ran for delegate. Teolis also claimed Barios told him that if he were to decline to run, he could expect assignment to higher-paying employment both with the union and on movie shoots. During the period these alleged threats and promises occurred, Teolis stated that Barios was assisting him in gaining an endorsement to his chauffeur's license that would allow greater access to Teamster jobs and was also promising him assignment to upcoming movie shoot work. However, according to Teolis, Barios continued to try to persuade Teolis during this period not to run for delegate, claiming alternately that Teolis could not beat the slate put together by Mundy, warning that Teolis' continued candidacy would likely wake "sleeping giants" who could ultimately ruin Teolis' name and credibility and, ultimately, stating that he, Barios, no longer would be Teolis' friend if Teolis continued his campaign.
Barios confirmed speaking with Teolis several times in January but strenuously denied any threats to cut his work assignments. He expressly denied making the "sleeping giant" comment, although he stated he was confident that the Membership slate of candidates of which Mundy was part would be successful in the delegate election. Barios described job assignments given to Teolis during the month of January and also pointed out the assistance he provided Teolis in his attempt to expand his license certification. Barios described himself as on friendly terms with Teolis before and after Teolis accepted nomination to run for delegate.
According to Teolis, on January 16, less than two weeks before the local union's nominations meeting, Mundy appeared at a dock where Teolis was working and the two men engaged in an open argument in the presence of other members of Local Union 251. Teolis claimed that Mundy called him "ungrateful" for favorable job assignments with the local union he previously had been given and also stated that such assignments would not be available in the future. At the end of the argument, Mundy stated that Teolis was "done" in the Teamsters; he then slammed his car door shut and drove off.
On January 29, Teolis accepted nomination for delegate to the IBT convention. At the candidates' meeting that followed the nominations meeting, Teolis alleged that Mundy told him to write "unemployed" on the Election Office form that requested information from candidates. In early February, when an inbound ship arrived at the docks, members of the dock crew that Teolis had been working with were called to their positions. Teolis was not. He claims that this was the beginning of the retaliatory efforts by Mundy.
Mundy described his history with Teolis as follows. Teolis held a number of jobs with Local Union 251 between July 2003 and May 2005. He was assigned by the local union as an organizer in a number of organizing drives, beginning with a campaign at Dryvit, Inc. and ending with a long drive to organize workers at G.E. Electric Boat Division. In those positions, he was provided with a salary from the International Union as well as an IBT vehicle, credit card and expense allowance. According to Mundy, Teolis announced his interest in running for delegate to the 2006 IBT Convention while the two of them had dinner in April 2005; Teolis asked Mundy to include him on Mundy's slate. Mundy responded that he did not think he had room on the slate for Teolis; Teolis replied that he would run in any event.
When the Electric Boat campaign was not finding traction, Mundy stated he tried to save the campaign (and Teolis' job) with a joint blitz effort funded by the local union and Joint Council 10. However, by early May 2005 it was clear that current employees of Electric Boat were not responding to the drive, and it was discontinued on May 5. Mundy notified Teolis of the decision to discontinue the drive; with the termination of the drive, organizing reimbursement from the International Union ceased and Teolis' position as organizer was terminated.
When Teolis' union job ended, relations between him and Mundy, which had been very friendly, abruptly collapsed. Shortly after learning of his termination, Teolis reported to Mundy that his IBT-issued vehicle had been vandalized. The circumstances surrounding the report and Teolis' proposal for making the repairs aroused Mundy's suspicions, and he confronted Teolis about the incident. Teolis responded harshly. In addition, Mundy was drawn into a dispute between Teolis and the International Union over credit card use and expense account issues. Teolis also made a claim for vacation pay that, in Mundy's view, was unearned. Mundy granted the vacation pay grudgingly. However, Mundy's reaction to the vehicle vandalism, his reluctance to pay the vacation pay, and Teolis' response to losing his organizing job made Teolis assume a hostile stance, according to Mundy.
Nonetheless, after Teolis's union job ended in May 2005 he continued to obtain referrals for work in premium jobs. These referrals included work on a Showtime production filmed in Rhode Island, temporary "farm outs" to work in movie production under the jurisdiction of Local Union 25 in Boston in August and September, and another temporary position under the jurisdiction of Local Union 817 in New York in October and November. According to Mundy, these assignments are considered to be "plum jobs" as they are much more lucrative than other positions available to members of Local Union 251.
Mundy claims that, even though he learned in April 2005 that Teolis intended to run for delegate, whether or not as a member of Mundy's slate, he and the local union continued to refer Teolis to premium work. He denied threatening Teolis at the candidates' meeting that followed the nominations meeting. He admitted that he made a comment to Teolis about his employment status, but stated that this statement was made in a joking fashion. Witnesses to the remark were split in their recollections: supporters of Teolis remember the "unemployed" comment and that Mundy referred to Teolis in derogatory fashion, while supporters of the Membership slate recall only that Mundy's comments to Teolis were lighthearted and not threatening. The only non-member at the meeting was David Lucas, principal officer of IBT Local Union 671, who chaired the meeting (and who ultimately resigned as the chairman of the Local Union 251 election committee after a disagreement with Mundy). Lucas stated that Mundy's comment at the meeting was made in jocular, not threatening, fashion. Finally, in response to Teolis' accusation that he was not referred to a dock job in mid-February, Mundy states that he did, in fact, call Teolis about a referral on the job on February 11, but Teolis did not answer or call back in response to the message Mundy left on his answering machine. Local union telephone records provided to our investigator show a telephone call to Teolis' cell phone at 12:56 p.m. that date. Subsequent correspondence from Mundy to Teolis dated March 15 confirms that Mundy offered Teolis work on a movie production and at Metals Recycling on March 14; Teolis declined both jobs because of a claimed back injury. A second letter from Mundy to Teolis on March 23 confirmed Teolis' call to Mundy that date in which Teolis stated he would be available to return to work on March 25.
Further evidence of the antipathy between Teolis and Mundy included the following: in an interview with our investigator, Teolis implied that Mundy is addicted to cocaine. Mundy, for his part, freely provided arrest records for both Teolis and his brother Chris, apparently to support his claim that the Teolis' handling of the IBT vehicle and his business expense claims were inappropriate.
Analysis
Retaliation for exercising one's political right to run as a delegate or for exercising any political right protected by the Rules is prohibited.
Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.
Rules, Article VII, Section 12(g).
Proving a retaliation case requires three elements: 1) activity protected under the Rules; 2) the charged party having actual or constructive knowledge of that protected activity; and 3) a showing that the protected activity was a motivating factor in the decision or the conduct at issue. Peete-Jackson, 2006 ESD 112 (February 27, 2006), aff'd, 06 EAM 17A (March 29, 2006). The existence of a reasonable independent basis for the decision or conduct at issue is a defense to an allegation of improper motivation so long as it is not shown to be a pretext. There can be no violation if the decision maker would have taken the same action in the absence of the protective activity. Ulloa, 2001 EAD 135 (February 6, 2001); Ruscigno, 2001 EAD 105 (January 26, 2001); Pope, 2000 EAD 39 (October 17, 2000); Hoffa, P857 (September 11, 1996), aff'd, 96 EAM 234 (September 19, 1996). In other words, a retaliation case is analyzed under the rules just as a discrimination case is under the NLRA. See generally Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enf'd, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
Retaliation in contexts other than discharges, including removal from position as a steward, is also prohibited. Williams, 2001 EAD 152 (February 8, 2001); Thornsberry, 2001 EAD 172 (February 16, 2001).
The investigation reveals that Teolis and Mundy, after a long period of good relations, are no longer on good terms. After a long period in which Teolis received special treatment from Mundy, the relationship soured when Teolis lost his employment and benefits as an organizer, and Mundy questioned the vandalism incident, the vacation pay request and Teolis' expenses. That this antipathy would result in exchanges that featured strong words and negative statements seems clear. However, the history of job referrals made to Teolis in the period from the time he first announced his desire to run for delegate, with or without Mundy's support, is not consistent with the claims he makes in the protest. Further, Teolis has presented insufficient evidence that he was denied work following the nominations meeting. Given this evidence, Mundy's statement at the candidates' meeting suggesting that Teolis was (or would be) "unemployed," whether jocular or menacing, is not sufficient to state a violation of the Rules where it is not accompanied or soon followed by adverse employment action attributable to the speaker.
Accordingly we DENY this 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
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
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 184
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2198
braymond@teamster.org
Sarah Riger, Staff Attorney
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2198
sriger@teamster.org
David J. Hoffa, Esq.
Hoffa 2006
30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 324
Farmington Hills, MI 48834
David@hoffapllc.com
Barbara Harvey
645 Griswold Street
Suite 3060
Detroit, MI 48226
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210
ken@tdu.org
Daniel E. Clifton
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10001
dclifton@lcnlaw.com
Stephen Ostrach
1863 Pioneer Parkway East, #217
Springfield, OR 97477-3907
saostrach@gmail.com
Glenn Teolis
55 Falcon Lane
Cranston, RI 02921
Stuart B. Mundy, Secretary-Treasurer
IBT Local Union 251
121 Brightridge Avenue
E. Providence, RI 02914
Joseph Barios, President/Business Agent
IBT Local Union 251
121 Brightridge Avenue
E. Providence, RI 02914
Lisa Dibiasio
Coia & Lepore
226 South Main Street
Providence, RI 02903
David F. Reilly
22 West Main Street
North Kingston, RI 02852
dreilly@rooltd.com
Jeffrey Ellison
510 Highland Avenue, #325
Milford, MI 48381
EllisonEsq@aol.com