OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: CHERYL THEURER, ) Protest Decision 2021 ESD 140
) Issued: September 9, 2021
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-165-073021-MW
____________________________________)
Cheryl Theurer, member of Local Union 777, filed a pre-election protest 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 Jim Glimco, local union principal officer, violated the Rules by barring members from wearing partisan t-shirts to a contract ratification meeting.
Election Supervisor representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
On July 29, 2021, Local Union 777 conducted a contract ratification meeting at the Belvidere American Legion hall for members employed at First Student, Belvidere. Protestor Theurer told our investigator that she appeared at the meeting location wearing a shirt supporting the O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate. She brought additional shirts to give to co-workers who were present. Theurer told our investigator she did not plan to make any campaign statement during the meeting; instead, she wore the shirt to declare her electoral preference.
Theurer stated that she spoke with a couple of co-workers in the parking lot of the hall before the meeting started and before she entered the hall. She had shirts to give them as well. She stated that while she was speaking with them, she saw principal officer Jim Glimco in the parking lot, apparently retrieving something from his vehicle. According to Theurer, Glimco saw her shirt and told her she could not wear it into the hall. Theurer said she asked why. Glimco’s reply, according to Theurer, was that campaigning was not allowed in the meeting. Theurer responded that she did not intend to campaign during the meeting, just wear the shirt. According to Theurer, Glimco told her that wearing the shirt was not allowed, and she would have to change to another shirt. Based on that instruction, Theurer returned to her vehicle, changed her shirt, and entered the hall. She delivered the campaign shirts to her co-workers in the parking lot, not in the hall.
A co-worker of Theurer told our investigator that she was standing with Theurer in the parking lot when Glimco walked past them. She said Glimco saw Theurer’s campaign shirt and told her campaigning was not allowed inside the hall and she could not wear the shirt into the meeting. The co-worker told our investigator that Theurer responded to Glimco that she would wear the shirt into the meeting but would not otherwise campaign. According to the witness, Glimco firmly told Theurer that even the shirt was not permitted in the meeting. The witness stated that, at that, Theurer went to her vehicle and changed into a neutral shirt. In addition, the witness did not don the campaign shirt that Theurer had given her.
Glimco denied that Theurer was barred from the hall while wearing a campaign shirt. He stated that he arrived at the hall early, to prepare for the 9:00 a.m. scheduled start of the meeting, and that he entered the hall carrying an audio speaker and related equipment and remained inside until after the meeting concluded at 10 a.m. Glimco specifically denied any exchange between himself and Theurer in the parking lot before the meeting on any topic, including shirts. He stated that he arrived before Theurer or any other First Student drivers were present. Because he arrived early, entered the hall immediately, and did not leave the hall until the meeting, Glimco declared there was no opportunity for him to interact with Theurer in the parking lot before the meeting. He stated further that a sign-in table was set up immediately inside the front entrance, where membership status was checked. He did not staff the table, but he said he could see the table from where he was in the assembly hall. He said that no one entered the hall wearing campaign garb.
Rita Bomher, business agent with responsibility for the First Student bargaining unit, stated she was present at the ratification meeting. She said she was the first to arrive at the site, and she waited in the parking lot until the person with the key arrived to open the hall. She said that Jim Glimco arrived shortly after she did. According to Bomher, the three entered the hall well before the meeting and before any First Student drivers arrived. She denied that Glimco exited and re-entered the hall before the meeting began. Bomher told our investigator that, from inside the hall, she did not have a view of the parking lot.
Greg Glimco, local union secretary-treasurer and brother of the principal officer, also attended the meeting. He stated that he saw a woman whose name he did not know wearing an O’Brien-Zuckerman t-shirt in the parking lot before the meeting. He stated he saw the same woman in the hall during the meeting but she was not wearing the O’Brien-Zuckerman shirt at that time. He told our investigator he had no explanation for why the woman had changed out of her campaign shirt before entering the meeting.
According to the sign-in sheet, 56 members attended the meeting.
Article VII, Section 5(a)(3) of the Rules states that local unions are not required to allot time for campaigning during any meeting. If a local union elects to allow campaigners to address those attending a union meeting, it must give advance written notice of the opportunity to all candidates. The wearing of campaign shirts, buttons, stickers, or hats is not governed by this rule. The Rules place no limitation on a member’s right to wear partisan garb while attending a membership meeting.
We credit Theurer and her corroborating witness and find that Glimco told Theurer in the parking lot she could not enter the meeting wearing a partisan shirt. In the strictest sense, Theurer was not denied entry to the meeting while wearing the partisan shirt because she changed her shirt after the exchange with Glimco and did not test Glimco’s statement by wearing the campaign shirt to the sign-in table. We find, nonetheless, that Theurer was not required to put Glimco’s statement to such a test. Instead, she reasonably understood the principal officer’s statement, made to her in the parking lot outside the entryway to the hall, that she would be barred admission unless she changed her shirt. Glimco’s statement interfered with the rights guaranteed Theurer by Article VII, Section 12(a).
We find that the accounts of Theurer and her witness are corroborated by the statement of Greg Glimco, who saw a woman wearing a campaign shirt in the parking lot but not in the hall. We conclude it is more likely than not that Theurer changed out of her partisan shirt before entering the ratification meeting for the reason stated in the protest—that she was instructed by a person in authority that she was not permitted to wear the shirt into the meeting and would be barred if she attempted to do so. In reaching this factual determination, we do not credit the denial by Jim Glimco, and we find that business agent Bomher, by her own words, was not in a position to observe the exchange in the parking lot.
Remedy
When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process. “The Election Supervisor’s discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy is broad and is entitled to deference.” Hailstone & Martinez, 10 EAM 7 (September 14, 2010).
We order Local Union 777 and Glimco to cease and desist from interfering with campaign rights of members, generally, and from barring members from wearing partisan garb into union meetings. This cease-and-desist order extends to all meetings the union conducts for its members through the conclusion of the International officers election, whether general membership meetings, craft meetings, ratification meetings, and all other meetings, whether held in-person or via video conference.
We further order Local Union 777 to post the remedial notice attached to this decision on all union bulletin boards where First Student drivers who attended the July 29, 2021 ratification meeting are employed. The notice must be posted no later than Monday, September 13, 2021 and must remain posted through Monday, October 11, 2021. The local union must submit a declaration of posting to OES no later than Tuesday, September 14, 2021. This order is strictly remedial in nature and is intended to inform the portion of the membership affected by the violation of their rights under the Rules and that those rights were violated.
We decline to order a remedial campaign mailing at local union expense to the members affected by the violation, concluding on the narrow facts of this case that the violation is appropriately remedied by the cease-and-desist order and notice posting.
A remedial order of the Election Supervisor is immediately effective, unless stayed. Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996).
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 140
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
Fred Zuckerman
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
ken@tdu.org
Scott Jenkins
scott@oz2021.com
Cheryl Theurer
Myelko76@yahoo.com
Teamsters Local Union 777
James Glimco
vespaitaly@gmail.com
Joe Childers
jchilders@ibtvote.org
Bill Broberg
wbroberg@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com
Office of the Election Supervisor
for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
1990 M Street, N.W., Suite 650
Washington, D.C. 20036
844-428-8683 Toll Free
202-925-8922 Facsimile
electionsupervisor@ibtvote.org
www.ibtvote.org
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
NOTICE OF TEAMSTERS ELECTION RULES VIOLATION
The Election Rules for election of Teamster International Officers protect the rights of individual members to support candidates for union office, including by wearing campaign shirts to local union meetings.
The Election Supervisor has found that Local Union 777 and its president, Jim Glimco, violated the Election Rules by interfering with the right of its members to wear campaign shirts to a contract ratification meeting of First Student members held July 29, 2021.
The Election Supervisor will not tolerate violation of the Rules. The Election Supervisor has ordered Local Union 777 to cease and desist from interfering with members’ rights to wear partisan clothing to membership meetings. The Election Supervisor has also ordered Local Union 777 to post this Notice to advise members of the decision, and of their right to wear partisan clothing in membership meetings.
The Election Supervisor has issued this decision in Theurer, 2021 ESD 140 (September 9, 2021). You may read this decision at https://www.ibtvote.org/Protest-Decisions/esd2020/2021esd140.
Any protest you have regarding your rights under the Election Rules or any conduct by any person or entity that violates the Rules should be filed with Richard W. Mark, 1990 M Street, N.W., Suite 650, Washington, D.C. 20036, telephone: 844-429-8683, fax: 202-925-8922, email: electionsupervisor@ibtvote.org.
This notice must remain posted through October 11, 2021
and must not be defaced or covered up.