Protest Decisions

September 29, 1995

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Eddie R. Bailey II

September 29, 1995

Page 1

Eddie R. Bailey II

September 29, 1995

Page 1

Re:   Election Office Case No. P-149-LU41-MOI

Gentlepersons:

A protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Eddie R.

Bailey II, a member of Local Union 41.  Mr. Bailey alleges that Wesley Epperson, also a member of Local Union 41, engaged in threatening and intimidating behavior when he approached Mr. Bailey and demanded that he sign a petition accrediting Ron Carey as a candidate for reelection to the office of general president, in violation of the Rules, at

Article VIII, Sections 11(e) and (f). 

The protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator William O. Eisler. 

Eddie R. Bailey II

September 29, 1995

Page 1

Mr. Bailey is employed by Nationsway Transportation, where he is also a shop steward for Local Union 41.  Late in the afternoon of August 10, 1995, Mr. Bailey was approached by Mr. Epperson, a United Parcel Service driver, while waiting for shipping bills in the warehouse area of the Hallmark Cards Distribution Center at Liberty, Missouri.  Mr. Bailey was wearing a “Hoffa” button.  Mr. Epperson asked Mr. Bailey if he was a Teamster.  When Mr. Bailey acknowledged that he was, Mr. Epperson produced an accreditation petition on behalf of Mr. Carey and asked Mr. Bailey to sign it.  Mr. Bailey refused and stated he was supporting Mr. Hoffa in the election.

Mr. Bailey states that upon advising Mr. Epperson that he supported Mr. Hoffa,

Mr. Epperson’s “tone became real hostile and belligerent.”  According to Mr. Bailey, Mr. Epperson called him “stupid for believing what I believed” and further stated that “if Hoffa got in, the mafia would be in the union.”  Mr. Bailey told Mr. Epperson to “get away” from him, that he “didn’t want to talk to him anymore.”  Mr. Epperson continued to make comments, Mr. Bailey reports, and then said, “I can’t believe the stupidity of you dumb-assed freight haulers.”  The discussion, according to Mr. Bailey, distressed him greatly.

Mr. Epperson acknowledges he asked Mr. Bailey to sign the accreditation petition for Mr. Carey, and that Mr. Bailey declined to do so, stating he did not support Mr. Carey.  Thereafter, Mr. Epperson states that he and Mr. Bailey “exchanged views about Carey mostly.  I asked if he was a Hoffa supporter.  We also talked about pensions now versus the past.”  According to Mr. Epperson, the conversation turned to such subjects as union finances and strike benefits.  “I was standing to his side,” states Mr. Epperson.  Mr. Epperson states that although he and Mr. Bailey disagreed strongly and they debated the matter, there was no physical contact.  Mr. Epperson also states nobody from Hallmark intervened even though they were beside an open office.

The Election Officer recently issued her decision in Dunn, P-110-LU25-BOS (July 28, 1995), affm’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 8 (KC) (August 21, 1995).  In that case, a conversation strikingly similar to the discussion and circumstances presented here, was at issue.  Like Mr. Epperson, Mr. Dunn initiated a conversation with a fellow member by requesting him to sign an accreditation petition for a candidate which he knew that member did not support.  The invitation engendered a heated conversation, which ultimately lead to the filing of the protest.  The Election Officer ruled:

The fact that Mr. Cashman engaged Mr. Dunn in a discussion, even a heated one, does not constitute a violation of the Rules which are designed to ensure fair, honest, open and informed elections.   See Scott, P-1092-LU745-SOU (November 21, 1991)(Threatening words by a supporter of a candidate to a supporter of an opposing candidate in the context of ongoing animosity and where no fight erupted was not found to violate the Rules).

The exchange between the protester and Mr. Epperson, while certainly spirited in nature, did not constitute a direct or implied threat, and does not constitute a violation of the Rules.  

Based on the foregoing reasons, the protest in DENIED.

Eddie R. Bailey II

September 29, 1995

Page 1

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter.  The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal.  Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:

Kenneth Conboy, Esq.

Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon

180 Maiden Lane, 36th Floor

New York, NY  10038 

Fax (212) 248 2655

Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.

Sincerely,

Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer

cc:               Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

William O. Eisler, Adjunct Regional Coordinator