OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: HOFFA-HALL 2016, ) Protest Decision 2015 ESD 9
) Issued: July 17, 2015
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-009-070315-FW
____________________________________)
Hoffa-Hall 2016 filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protest alleged that a non-member solicited accreditation signatures in violation of the Rules.
Election Supervisor representative Michael Miller investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Article X of the Rules permits candidates and slates of candidates for International office to seek accredited status by which they may publish campaign material in Teamster magazine and obtain a union-wide membership list to be used to advance their candidacies for International office. To obtain accredited status, each such candidate or slate must obtain signatures on petitions of at least 2.5% of the membership of the union-wide or regional membership pool applicable to the office sought. Under Article X, Section 2(a), accreditation petitions “may only be circulated by a member in good standing.” Each petition contains space for the petition circulator to state his/her name, local union number and other identifying information, and “to certify the validity and accuracy of the petition’s contents.”
The protest alleged that Bill Ulloa, a former member of Local Union 396, circulated accreditation petitions. Ulloa was last a member of a Teamsters local union in 2003. He presently works part-time as an organizer and benefits counselor for Teamsters for a Democratic Union, an independent committee.
Ulloa told our investigator that some months ago, Richard Galvan, a candidate aligned with Tim Sylvester, Fred Zuckerman and others in opposition to Hoffa-Hall 2016, asked his assistance in setting up campaign tables at employer worksites in and around Los Angeles County. Ulloa agreed and has done so on several occasions since the date of the request. He stated that he is aware of the Rules provision permitting only members in good standing to circulate accreditation petitions. In all instances where he campaigned at worksites, Ulloa stated that he has campaigned with and in the company of members in good standing. His fellow campaigners who were members in good standing had clipboards containing accreditation petitions and have asked members they meet at those worksites to sign. In contrast, Ulloa said he has limited his activity to standing at a campaign table and engaging members about campaign issues and candidates. He denied that he has asked members to sign petitions, presented petitions to them to sign, or otherwise possessed, handled, or circulated petitions. He said that if a member asked to sign a petition, he directed that member to a campaigner who was a member in good standing and had a petition clipboard.
Galvan corroborated Ulloa in this regard. He stated that he and other members in good standing solicited petition signatures on occasions where Ulloa was present and that Ulloa stood behind a table and talked to members about campaign issues and candidates but did not circulate petitions or ask members to sign them. Hugo Leal, a member in good standing, said he circulated petitions with Galvan and other members in good standing when Ulloa was present; he said Ulloa did not circulate petitions or ask members to sign them.
The protestor presented six witnesses who observed Ulloa in non-work areas at the UPS Main Street and Grande Vista worksites under the jurisdiction of Local Union 396. Of these, four witnesses, each interviewed separately, told our investigator that they observed Ulloa in the company of three to five other individuals whom they knew or believed to be members in good standing; that they never observed Ulloa in possession of a petition clipboard; that they never observed a member sign an accreditation petition in a circumstance where Ulloa was present but a member in good standing was not; and that they never heard Ulloa ask a member to sign a petition. Of the remaining two witnesses, one told our investigator that he observed members sign petitions on a clipboard that was on the table where Ulloa stood, but that a person known to the witness as a member in good standing was also present to observe the member sign. The second witness told our investigator that he observed Ulloa at the table alone and that as many as “thirty or forty members” signed the petition on that table under circumstances where no member in good standing was present to circulate the petition.
The protestor also submitted photos of worksite campaign events where Ulloa was present. These photos depicted persons known to be members in good standing holding petition clipboards. Where Ulloa is present in the photos, he is seen with empty hands either walking or standing at a table that contains campaign material. No photo depicts a member signing an accreditation petition where Ulloa was present but a member in good standing was not.
A non-member who campaigns but who does not actively circulate or solicit signatures on accreditation petitions does not violate Article X, Section 2(a) of the Rules. See Hoffa 2006, 2005 ESD 44 (December 30, 2005) (non-member retiree did not violate the Rules by appearing with a member who was circulating petitions, even though he encouraged members to sign the petition, where he did not handle or circulate the petition himself).
The preponderance of the evidence, including, notably, five of the six witnesses the protestor identified, supports Ulloa’s firm denial that he solicited members’ signatures on accreditation petitions or otherwise circulated the petitions.
Accordingly, we DENY this protest.[1]
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:
Kathleen A. Roberts
Election Appeals Master
JAMS
620 Eighth Avenue, 34th floor
New York, NY 10018
kroberts@jamsadr.com
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, 1050 17th Street, N.W., Suite 375, Washington, D.C. 20036, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Kathleen A. Roberts
2015 ESD 9
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
braymond@teamster.org
David J. Hoffa
1701 K Street NW, Ste 350
Washington DC 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
Teamsters United
315 Flatbush Avenue, #501
Brooklyn, NY 11217
info@teamstersunited.org
Louie Nikolaidis
350 West 31st Street, Suite 40
New York, NY 10001
lnikolaidis@lcnlaw.com
Julian Gonzalez
350 West 31st Street, Suite 40
New York, NY 10001
jgonzalez@lcnlaw.com
David O’Brien Suetholz
515 Park Avenue
Louisville, KY 45202
dave@unionsidelawyers.com
Fred Zuckerman
P.O. Box 9493
Louisville, KY 40209
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Bill Ulloa
1118 Teresa Street
West Covina, CA 91790
bill@tdu.org
Teamsters Local Union 396
880 S. Oak Park Road, Suite 200
Covina, CA 91724
teamsters@local396.net
Michael Miller
P.O. Box 251673
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1673 miller.michael.j@verizon.net
Deborah Schaaf
1521 Grizzly Gulch
Helena, MT 59601
dschaaf@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
214 S. Main Street, Suite 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
EllisonEsq@aol.com
[1] In addition to defending the protest on the merits, TDU argues that it is untimely filed. Article XIII, Section 2(b) states that protests must be filed within two working days of the day the protest becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested. It has oft been held that this time limit is prudential and not jurisdictional. See, e.g., Lytle, 2010 EAM 51 (June 30, 2011). Investigation shows that the incidents described above occurred on June 23 and June 29, respectively. The protest was filed July 3. We note probable untimeliness but decline to dismiss the protest on that basis, concluding that a decision on the merits provides the parties guidance on the requirements of the Rules.