OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: TEAMSTER POWER, ) Protest Decision 2021 ESD 161
) Issued: October 20, 2021
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-191-101621-NE
____________________________________)
Teamster Power, a slate of candidates for International office, 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 a member of Local Union 817 violated the Rules by campaigning for the O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate on employer-paid time.
Election Supervisor representative Peter Marks investigated this protest.
By email sent October 19, 2021, the protestor requested to withdraw the protest for the reason that the witness whose evidence prompted the filing of the protest failed to respond to our investigator’s requests for an interview.
Concluding that the withdrawal of the protest is consistent with the purposes of the Rules, we deem the protest WITHDRAWN on this basis.
We decline the request of the O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate to impose a monetary sanction on the protestor for filing the protest “without doing even a cursory investigation of the facts.” The slate contends that the instant situation is similar in relevant respects to that which obtained in O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021, 2020 ESD 14 (August 25, 2020), aff’d, 2020 EAM 3 (September 4, 2020). There, the O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate filed a protest contending that a required disclaimer was not included on a campaign banner or a Facebook post that included photos of the banner. The evidence the protestor submitted with its protest demonstrated that the allegation was false. The Election Supervisor imposed a monetary sanction against the protestor for filing a protest it knew was meritless. In affirming the sanction, the Election Appeals Master wrote:
In determining the remedy for this action, the Election Supervisor ordered OZ/TU 2021 to pay $1000 to cover a portion of the costs of the investigation because there was no evidence that the claimed violation had occurred. The Election Supervisor correctly concluded that the protestor relied on speculation that the disclaimer was missing to support its claim.
The purpose for ordering the payment was remedial in nature and designed to educate the parties with respect to the Rules’ requirements and to deter further violations. The remedy here achieves these goals and serves to ensure that, in the future, parties will conduct reasonable inquiries prior to submitting protests and present evidence to support claimed violations of the Rules. As such, the remedy was well within the Election Supervisor’s broad remedial authority and is AFFIRMED.
(Emphasis supplied).
Here, by contrast, the protestor filed its protest based on witness evidence that a violation had occurred. As such, it had fulfilled the obligation to make reasonable inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the claimed violation before filing the protest. That the witness declined to participate in the investigation and provide that evidence to our investigator was a later event unknown to the protestor at the time the protest was filed. For this reason, we conclude that the circumstances here are sufficiently dissimilar from those in O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021, supra, as to make imposition of a monetary sanction against Teamster Power unwarranted. We caution all parties, however, that the Rules require the protestor not only to make reasonable inquiry into the facts underlying a protest but also to present the evidence that supports the protest, something the protestor could not accomplish here, prompting its withdrawal request.
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 161
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
Teamsters Local Union 817
Thomas O’Donnell
tj@local817.com
Thomas Schlutow
tmschlutow@yahoo.com
Peter Marks
pmarks@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com