OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: ALEXANDER MATOS and ) Protest Decision 2021 ESD 42
DANA SLAUGHTER, ) Issued: January 14, 2021
) OES Case Nos. P-047-010921-AT
Protestors ) and E-049-010921-AT
)
-and- )
)
ELIGIBILITY OF DANA SLAUGHTER, )
)
Local Union 592. )
____________________________________)
Alexander Matos and Dana Slaughter, members of Local Union 592, filed a pre-election protest in Case No. 047-010921-AT pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protest alleged that Local Union 592 principal officer Jim Smith impermissibly interfered with the nomination process for the local union’s delegates and alternate delegates election.
Smith countered with a protest in Case No. E-049-010921-AT, challenging the eligibility of Slaughter to be nominated for alternate delegate.
Election Supervisor representative Joe Childers investigated Case No. 047-010921-AT; Election Supervisor representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated Case No. E-049-010921-AT. The protests were consolidated for decision.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Local Union 592 is entitled to elect one delegate and one alternate delegate. Its nominations meeting was conducted January 9, 2021. On or about January 8, 2021, written nominations for two delegate candidates and three alternate delegate candidates were properly submitted to the local union. Candidates for delegate were principal officer Smith and former shop steward Stanley Morris. Candidates for alternate delegate were secretary-treasurer John Mathis, Michael May, and Slaughter.
On the morning of January 9, before the start of the nominations meeting, principal officer Smith approached Morris, his would-be opponent in the delegate contest, in the parking lot and told him that he needed to work with Smith and stop listening to protestor Alex Matos, who Smith said was feeding Morris a bunch of crap. Smith told Morris that if he were interested in serving, he could have the alternate delegate position. Smith explained that he would get Mathis, Smith’s running mate, to decline nomination for alternate delegate if Morris would get Michael May to decline nomination for the same position. Smith told Morris that the two of them then would be unopposed for their respective positions and no election would be necessary, saving the local union what Smith said would be $2,000 to $3,000 in printing, mailing, and administrative expenses of a contested election.[1] Smith reached the conclusion that he and Morris would be unopposed because Smith believed that Slaughter, also nominated for alternate delegate, was not eligible to run.
Morris confirmed to our investigator that Smith approached him in the parking lot, told him that a contested election would cost the local union a lot of money, and proposed to avoid this expense if Morris would agree to run for alternate delegate rather than delegate. Morris said Smith explained that he would get Mathis to decline his nomination for alternate delegate if Morris would do the same with respect to May. Morris thought about this proposal and then spoke privately with May, told him Smith’s idea, and got his agreement to decline his nomination for alternate delegate. According to Morris, May said he was fine declining his nomination so long as Morris got to participate in the local union’s delegation to the convention.
When Morris agreed to Smith’s proposal, Smith spoke with Mathis about declining his nomination for alternate delegate. Mathis, who had been alternate delegate to the convention three times previously, told Smith that if Morris wanted the spot, he would decline the nomination in order to save the local union the cost of the election. Mathis as secretary-treasurer knew the local union’s financial condition and saw avoiding the election as a prudent financial move.
With agreement to Smith’s proposal, the candidates then turned to paperwork. Morris had previously submitted a written acceptance of his nomination for delegate; he signed the acceptance form a second time, writing in the words “I decline” and dating his signature. May and Mathis did the same on the written acceptances for alternate delegate each had signed previously.[2] At the nominations meeting that followed, Smith was nominated in writing for delegate, and Morris was nominated and seconded for alternate delegate from the floor by Smith and May.
With respect to Slaughter’s written nomination, her nominators, Morris and May, re-signed their written nomination and second of her with the words, “I withdraw the nomination,” and dated their signatures.
When the protestors learned that Smith and Morris had persuaded May and Mathis to decline their nominations and that Morris and May had withdrawn their nomination and second of Slaughter, they filed a protest contending that such actions violated the Rules.
We examine withdrawn nominations and acceptances for evidence of retaliation and coercion. Article VII, Section 12(a) of the Rules guarantees to members the “right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.” Article VII, Section 12(g) reinforces this basic right through its prohibition of “[r]etaliation 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...” In Marchetta, 2016 ESD 107 (February 10, 2016), we found no improper coercion where the local union principal officer told rank-and-file members that their candidacies “will cost the local $40,000 to run an election,” where no evidence was presented that the members were coerced or intimidated. We found that the statement “did not threaten, expressly or by implication, any type of adverse action against [the protestors], including a threat to withdraw union services or support in the workplace, a threat of union discipline, or a threat of physical harm or violence,” citing Echeveria, 2006 ESD 66 (February 3, 2006), Bales, 2011 ESD 286 (June 28, 2011), and Leal, 2011 ESD 269 (May 31, 2011), respectively. Similarly, in Decker, 2006 ESD 47 (January 17, 2006), we found that a member who declined to follow through on his oral commitment to second a nomination acted freely and without threat, coercion, or pressure. On the facts presented here, we find no evidence that Mathis or May were improperly persuaded to withdraw their acceptances of nomination for alternate delegate or that Morris was improperly persuaded to accept nomination for alternate delegate in lieu of delegate. We find each candidate was motivated by a desire to save the local union the expense of an election pursuant to a compromise that saw each “side” receiving an elected position. In support of this conclusion, we note that May, who declined his nomination for alternate delegate, seconded Morris’s nomination for that position from the floor at the January 9 meeting.
Turning to the actions of Morris and May in withdrawing their written nomination and second of Slaughter for alternate delegate, we hold such action as ineffective because a written nomination cannot be withdrawn once it is submitted. Eligibility of Mitchell et al, 2016 ESD 80 (January 25, 2016). Accordingly, we find Slaughter was validly nominated for alternate delegate[3] and now examine whether she satisfied the eligibility criteria for such nomination.
Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Rules provides that “to be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate or International Officer position, one must: (1) be a member in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one’s dues paid to the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments; (2) be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination; and (3) be eligible to hold office if elected.”
Because Local Union 592’s nominations meeting was held January 9, 2021, the 24-month period during which candidates must be in continuous good standing to be eligible for nomination ran from January 2019 through December 2020. Slaughter’s dues payment history shows that she paid her dues by check-off authorization and was in continuous good standing for the first thirteen consecutive months of the eligibility period. However, in January 2020, Slaughter was discharged from her employment with YRC. She challenged the discharge through the contractual grievance procedure and, in July 2020, was reinstated to her position without back pay. Because she had no compensation from the employer attributable to February, March, April, May, or June from which her dues could be deducted, Slaughter could not rely on her check-off authorization for dues payment and instead was obligated to make direct payment of dues to the local union no later than the last business day of each month in order to maintain good standing.[4] She did not do so and therefore suffered an interruption in the continuous good standing necessary to be eligible for nomination.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the protest by Matos and Slaughter alleging improper interference in the nominations process. We GRANT the protest by Smith and find that Slaughter is INELIGIBLE for nomination.
We direct Local Union 592 to post notice of nominations meeting results on all worksite bulletin boards to advise the membership that Smith was the sole nominee for delegate and Morris the sole nominee for alternate delegate and that they are deemed elected.
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. Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i). All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Barbara Jones
Election Appeals Master
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.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, all within the time prescribed above. Service may be accomplished by email, using the “reply all” function on the email by which the party received this decision. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones
2021 ESD 42
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
braymond@teamster.org
Edward Gleason
egleason@gleasonlawdc.com
Patrick Szymanski
szymanskip@me.com
Will Bloom
wbloom@dsgchicago.com
Tom Geoghegan
tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com
Rob Colone
rmcolone@hotmail.com
Barbara Harvey
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Kevin Moore
Mooregp2021@gmail.com
F.C. “Chris” Silvera
fitzverity@aol.com
Fred Zuckerman
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
ken@tdu.org
Alex Matos
Amatos1277@gmail.com
Dana Slaughter
Slaughterdana098@gmail.com
Jim Smith
Jimsmith592@hotmail.com
Stanley Morris
Stanley23139@msn.com
Teamsters Local Union 592
Sharon Hooper
Sharon.hooper@teamsterslocal322.org
Joe Childers
jchilders@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com
[1] Article II, Section 8 of the Rules states that “there shall be no necessity for an election” where the number of candidates for delegate and alternate delegate do not exceed the number to be elected. In such circumstance, the nominated candidates “shall be declared elected.”
[2] Article II, Section 5(k) of the Rules permits a candidate who has accepted nomination to revoke the acceptance at any time before ballots are printed.
[3] May was nominated for alternate delegate by Morris and protestor Matos. Slaughter was nominated for the same position by Morris and May. The curiosity that May would stand for election to the local union’s lone alternate delegate position while seconding the nomination of Slaughter to compete against him (and Mathis) in that election was explained by Matos, who told our investigator that Slaughter was his preferred candidate but that he had doubt about her eligibility and wanted to protect the position with May as a back-up candidate. If Slaughter were held eligible, Matos said the plan was that May would withdraw his acceptance and allow Slaughter to run against Mathis.
[4] If Slaughter’s reinstatement had included back pay attributable to each month she was off work in a discharged status, the check-off rule would have protected her continuous good standing because the back pay due her for each month would have been sufficient to fund her dues obligation for that month. Thompson, E20 (January 18, 1996), aff’d, 96 EAM 63 (January 29, 1996); Eligibility of Swain, 2011 ESD 98 (February 5, 2011). However, where no back pay was awarded, Slaughter had no compensation from the employer from which dues could be deducted for the months in question and was required to make timely direct payments to the local union in order to preserve her continuous good standing. Article X, Section 5(c) of the IBT constitution, quoted verbatim in local union bylaws, conditions the protection of the check-off rule on the circumstance where “employer fails to make a proper deduction during any month in which the member has earnings from work performed during the month from which the dues could have been deducted.” Here, YRC, Slaughter’s employer, did not fail to make a deduction from Slaughter’s compensation in February, March, April, May, or June because she had no compensation from which such deductions could be made.