Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: FRED ZUCKERMAN,                    )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 254

                        )           Issued: June 21, 2016

            Protestor.                                            )           OES Case Nos. P-241-032416-FW   

____________________________________)                                  

Fred Zuckerman, member, principal officer, and elected delegate of Local Union 89 and candidate for IBT General President, 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 Mike Philbeck used union resources to campaign for Kevin Moore in Local Union 299’s delegates and alternate delegates election.

            Election Supervisor representative Joe Childers investigated this protest. 

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            Local Union 299 is entitled to elect five delegates and five alternate delegates to the IBT convention.  Kevin Moore, local union principal officer and an IBT carhaul director, led the Moore Members First slate against the Teamsters United Against Hoffa slate.  The local union is headquartered in Detroit MI.

            The protest alleged that Philbeck, principal officer of Local Union 651 in Lexington KY, used union resources to travel to Detroit to campaign for Moore and the Members First slate.  Investigation showed that Philbeck drove to Detroit on March 22, 2016 and returned to Lexington the next day.  The purpose of his trip was to meet with Moore, Roy Gross, and other officials of Local Union 299 concerning carhaul issues, including a carhaul organizing conference.  The Teamsters National Automobile Transport Industry Negotiating Committee (TNATINC) is engaged in protracted negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement with the industry employers.  Moore leads the TNATINC.  Philbeck is a committee member.  A significant number of members of Local Union 651 are employed in carhaul. 

            Early on March 23, 2016, Moore and others campaigned in support of the Members First slate at a UPS facility under Local Union 299’s jurisdiction in Romulus MI.  Philbeck was present at this campaigning.  Although Philbeck denied engaging in campaign activity at the UPS facility, he stated he was on personal time nonetheless.  Given the time of day at which the campaigning took place, there is no contrary evidence.

            The protest alleged that Philbeck impermissibly used union resources to travel to Michigan for a campaign purpose.  The evidence established that his travel purpose was union business concerning carhaul issues.  Precedent firmly establishes that campaign activity conducted on personal time while traveling on union business does not violate the Rules.   See, e.g., Bunstine, 2006 ESD 46 (January 14, 2006) (union payment of lost time and travel expenses to attend TDU convention is legitimate, where much of convention is union business even though incidental campaigning may occur); Taylor, 2000 EAD 75 (December 29, 2000), aff’d 01 EAM 16 (February 8, 2001) (same); Hoffa-Hall 2011, 2011 ESD 231 (April 22, 2011) (union payment of lost time and travel to attend joint council meeting did not violate the Rules, even though many attendees were candidates for International office on the same slate and met to plan their campaign and discuss strategy, where campaign activity was incidental to the joint council meeting).

            We conclude that the purpose of Philbeck’s trip was the union’s carhaul negotiations and carhaul campaign strategy, that Local Union 651’s payment of travel expenses and salary for his attendance was therefore legitimate as union business, and that any campaign activity in which he may have engaged was incidental to and did not detract from or interfere with the union business conducted on the trip.

            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:

Kathleen A. Roberts

Election Appeals Master

JAMS

620 Eighth Avenue, 34^th 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 17^th 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

            2016 ESD 254

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):