OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: JAMES BECK, ) Protest Decision 2011 ESD 256
) Issued: May 12, 2011
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-253-041111-ME
____________________________________)
James Beck, member of Local Union 100, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2 of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protest alleged that slate declaration forms used in the delegates election were not completed properly, rendering them invalid.[1]
Election Supervisor representative Denise Ventura investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Local Union 100 is entitled to five delegates and two alternate delegates to the IBT convention. At the nominations meeting held February 1, 2011, sixteen members were nominated for delegate and six for alternate delegate. Slate declarations comprising three full slates were subsequently filed, one for the UPSet4Fr8 slate, a second for the Teamsters First Choice slate, and the final for the Solidarity slate. One candidate for delegate ran as an independent.
As required by Article II, Section 6(a), notice of the nominations meeting results were posted on all worksite bulletin boards under the local union’s jurisdiction. The notice was dated February 4, 2011 and listed the candidates in accord with the slate declarations they filed.
Ballots were mailed March 8 and counted April 5. All members of the Teamsters First Choice slate were elected.
In early April, protestor Beck requested and received from OES regional director Ventura the slate declarations filed by the three slates that competed in the election. He filed this protest on April 8.
The protest made two allegations. It alleged that none of the slate declaration forms was signed by the local union secretary-treasurer. It further alleged, with respect to two of the three slate declarations, that the form did not indicate in boxes at the top of the form whether it was an “Original Slate Declaration” or an “Expansion of previously declared slate.” Protestor urged that because of these alleged defects, “nobody should have been able to run as a Slate, but only as individual candidates if so qualified. Therefore the entire election should be declared null and void and the entire election should be rerun.”
Article VIII of the Rules governs slate formation. Section 1(b) of that article requires that slate declaration forms for delegates and alternate delegates elections, as signed by all members of the slate, “shall be submitted to the Local Union’s Secretary-Treasurer (with a copy to the Election Supervisor).” There is no requirement in the Rules that the slate form be signed by the local union secretary-treasurer. A space for that signature appears on the form to create a record documenting that the form was received by the local union and the date it was received. However, failure of the local union officer to sign the form will not invalidate it.
As for the time by which slate forms must be submitted, Section 1(c) of Article VIII states that they “shall be filed at the earliest possible date but in no event later than three (3) days after the Local Union’s final delegate nominations meeting.” Here, the deadline for submission of slate declaration forms was February 4, three days after the February 1 nominations meeting. One of the forms at issue is dated February 3; the other two February 4. The notice of nominations meeting results, which lists the candidates in accordance with their slate affiliations, also is dated February 4. Although none of the forms carry the signature of the local union secretary-treasurer acknowledging the date each was submitted, the dates the forms were signed, appearing on the face of each form, demonstrate that all were submitted at the latest by the time the notice of nominations meeting results was prepared on February 4. Accordingly, we reject protestor’s claim that the forms are invalid because they were untimely submitted.
We also reject protestor’s contention that the failure of any of the forms to indicate whether it recorded the original or an expanded slate invalidated that slate. The Rules do not require that slate members declare whether the form they signed is the first or subsequent iteration of their slate.
The overriding purpose of the slate ruleis to insure that there is “mutual consent between and among all candidates running on a slate” to their doing so. Article VIII, Section 1(b) of the Rules provides that “[s]uch mutual consent shall be evidenced by the signing of a declaration by all members of the slate, giving the position that each candidate seeks and the name, if any, of the slate to be formed.” All of the forms at issue here met that requirement. Further confirmation of the regularity of the slate declaration forms is that none of the candidates who competed in the election challenged them; instead, the protest here was filed by a non-candidate.
Accordingly, we find that the form submitted by each slate was valid, and we DENY the protest on this basis.
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, NY 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, 1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L, Washington, D.C. 20006, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
[1] Beck also alleged in this protest that Sam Bucalo, a candidate for delegate, received impermissible employer assistance from UPS. Beck made the same allegation in Case No. P-245-040411-ME and will be decided in that case.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2011 ESD 256DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
braymond@teamster.org
David J. Hoffa
Hoffa Hall 2011
1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Ste. 730
Washington, D.C. 20036
hoffadav@hotmail.com
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210-0128
ken@tdu.org
Barbara Harvey
1394 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Fred Gegare
P.O. Box 9663
Green Bay, WI 54308-9663
kirchmanb@yahoo.com
Scott D. Soldon
3541 N. Summit Avenue
Shorewood, WI 53211
scottsoldon@gmail.com
Fred Zuckerman, President
Teamsters Local Union 89
3813 Taylor Blvd.
Louisville, KY 40215
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Robert M. Colone, Esq.
P.O. Box 272
Sellersburg, IN 47172-0272
rmcolone@hotmail.com
Carl Biers
Box 424, 315 Flatbush Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11217
info@SandyPope2011.org
Julian Gonzalez
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
350 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10001-5013
jgonzalez@lcnlaw.com
James Beck
3548 Turkeyfoot Road
Erlanger, KY 41018
beckfamily4@insightbb.com
Sam Bucalo, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 100
2100 Oak Road
Cincinnati, OH 45241
sarahm@teamsterslocal100.com
Butch Lewis, President
Teamsters Local Union 100
2100 Oak Road
Cincinnati, OH 45241
sarahm@teamsterslocal100.com
Denise Ventura
949 Old Hickory Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15243
dmventura@verizon.net
Maria Ho
Office of the Election Supervisor
1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L
Washington, D.C. 20006
mho@ibtvote.org
Kathryn Naylor
Office of the Election Supervisor
1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L
Washington, D.C. 20006
knaylor@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
214 S. Main Street, Ste. 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
EllisonEsq@aol.com