IN RE: CHARLES RICHARDSON II, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2006 ESD 233
Issued: May 9, 2006
OES Case No. P-06-271-042106-MW
Charles Richardson II, a member of Local Union 486 and delegate candidate on the Putting Members First slate, 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 a) two local union employees campaigned for the Teamsters for Change slate on time paid for by the union; b) the TFC slate conducted phone banking after receiving a membership list with phone numbers from the local union, while the protestor's slate was denied the identical information; and c) the TFC slate sent a campaign mailing to all members listing the stewards' names after the local union refused to disclose this information to the protestor's slate.
Election Supervisor representative Joe F. Childers investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
The protest alleged that Local Union 486 employees Ed Morin and Mike Sander (erroneously identified as Mike Saunders in the protest) campaigned at Roadway Express and Alvan Motor Freight on April 5, 2006 on time paid for by the local union. Protestor Richardson stated that neither Morin nor Sander had union business at the employer's facility that day, and he did not believe either took vacation time to campaign.
Local union secretary-treasurer Dave Robinson provided our investigator with vacation request forms for Sander and Morin. Sander's form showed he was on vacation for the period April 5 through 7, while Morin's showed he took one-half day of vacation on April 5.
Article VII, Section 12(b) of the Rules prohibits campaigning on time paid for by the union. However, "campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is … not violative of this section." The evidence here shows that Sander and Morin were on vacation time when they campaigned at Roadway Express and Alvan Motor Freight on April 5, 2006. Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of the protest.
The protest also claimed that phone banking by the TFC slate that featured a pre-recorded phone message from Robinson violated the Rules. The protest asserted that the local union provided names and phone numbers of members to the TFC slate while refusing to give such list to the protestor.
Investigation showed that the Hoffa campaign conducted automated phone banking in support of the TFC slate using the membership list provided to James Hoffa when he became an accredited candidate for International office under Article VII, Section 3 of the Rules. The Hoffa campaign has phone-matched various segments of the membership list for use in selected delegate elections. Such use of the membership list is permitted by the Rules. See Rhinier, 2006 ESD 126 (March 4, 2006), and cases collected there. The investigation found no evidence that the local union disclosed its membership list to the TFC slate. Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of the protest.
Finally, the protestor alleged that he requested but was denied a list of the local union's shop stewards, while the TFC slate obtained a list of stewards from the local union and sent a mailing to all members of the local union that named the stewards who endorsed the TFC slate. Robinson told our investigator that he and the members of his slate used their relationships developed over several years with the stewards to gain their endorsements. He stated that 61 of the 107 shop stewards in the local union gave permission to use their names in the TFC slate's campaign literature. Investigation showed that the stewards' list was not provided by the local union to the TFC slate, but was compiled by individual members of that slate for the purpose of furthering that slate's campaign. Absent evidence that the local union discriminated against the protestor's slate, 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 tor 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 Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1725 K Street, Suite 1400, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, 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 233
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
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 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
Charles Richardson II
1054 E. Pine River Road
Midland, MI 48640
Dave Robinson, Secretary-Treasurer
IBT Local Union 486
805 Bridgeview South
Saginaw, MI 48604
Joe F. Childers
201 W. Main Street, Suite 310
Lexington, KY 40507
childerslaw@yahoo.com
Bill Broberg
1108 Fincastle Road
Lexington, KY 40502
wcbroberg@aol.com
Jeffrey Ellison
510 Highland Avenue, #325
Milford, MI 48381
EllisonEsq@aol.com