January 3, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James A. Beck
January 3, 1996
Page 1
James A. Beck
3548 Turkeyfoot Road
Erlanger, KY 41018
Vincent Lasita, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 100
2100 Oak Road
Cincinnati, OH 45241
General Executive Board
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
John Sullivan, Esq.
Associate General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Herman Byrd, Division Manager
United Parcel Service
500 Gest Street
Cincinnati, OH 45203
Gary Kauffman, Business Manager
United Parcel Service
500 Gest Street
Cincinnati, OH 45203
Dick Gough, Labor Manager
United Parcel Service
500 Gest Street
Cincinnati, OH 45203
Martin Wald
Schnader, Harrison, Segal and Lewis
1600 Market Street
Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
James A. Beck
January 3, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-262-LU100-SCE
P-267-LU100-SCE
P-280-LU100-SCE
James A. Beck
January 3, 1996
Page 1
Gentlepersons:
Related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by James A. Beck, a member of Local Union 100. Because these protests involve similar legal and factual claims, they were consolidated by the Election Officer.
In P-262-LU100-SCE, the protester alleges that he has been discriminated against by the executive board of Local Union 100 by its decision to suspend him from membership for five years, beginning November 29, 1995. The protester asserts that the suspension is a continuation of a pattern of discriminatory conduct towards him by the local union and the IBT aimed at preventing him from running for delegate and from participating in local union affairs in general.
On December 7, 1995, Mr. Beck filed P-267-LU100-SCE in which he asserts that the Local Union 100 Executive Board “acted as interested parties” by suspending him from membership. The protester alleges that the local union secretary-treasurer and vice president violated Article VIII, Section 11 and Article XIII of the Rules by failing to arbitrate their dispute with him involving the Severance Pay Trust Fund as required by the Trust Fund Plan.
The IBT and Local Union 100 contend that the protester’s suspension is a consequence of his failure to abide by a decision of the General Executive Board (“GEB”) and bears no relation to the delegate process. The charged parties assert that the suspension is an internal union matter outside the jurisdiction of the Election Officer.
On December 18, 1995, the protester was terminated from his employment at United Parcel Service (“UPS”) due to his suspension from union membership. Mr. Beck filed P-280-LU100-SCE on that date, alleging that UPS terminated him unjustly for exercising his right to run for delegate, in violation of the Rules.
Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens investigated these protests.
The background facts in this case were previously described in Beck, P-204-LU100-SCE (December 5, 1995). Briefly, the GEB found Mr. Beck and Mr. Hooks, another member of Local Union 100, guilty of self-serving behavior and ordered them by letter dated October 10, 1995 to repay $14,069 to the Severance Pay Trust Fund, plus a penalty of $445.65 for prematurely cashing a certificate of deposit and interest. The protester and Mr. Hooks were also“barred from holding union office or positions as Trustees of Teamster related employee benefit plans for a period of three (3) years.”
James A. Beck
January 3, 1996
Page 1
By letter dated October 17, 1995, Local Union 100 Secretary-Treasurer Vincent Lasita informed Mr. Beck and Mr. Hooks that payment of the full amount ordered by the GEB must be received by the local union on behalf of the Trust Fund by November 3, 1995. Mr. Lasita later sent the protester an undated written reminder of his payment obligation.
On November 30, 1995, Mr. Lasita sent a letter to the protester and Mr. Hooks stating that the money they owed to the Severance Pay Trust Fund in accordance with the decision of the GEB had not been received by November 29. Accordingly, the local union executive board voted on that date to suspend Mr. Beck and Mr. Hooks from membership, effective immediately. The membership suspension is to remain in effect until the Severance Pay Trust Fund monies, penalty, and interest are repaid to Local Union 100 as mandated by the GEB’s decision.
Mr. Beck filed P-262-LU100-SCE on December 3, 1995, following his receipt of Mr. Lasita’s letter. On December 4, 1995, Mr. Lasita sent another letter to the protester and Mr. Hooks concerning their suspension from membership. The letter stated that Mr. Beck and Mr. Hooks had the right to request a hearing before the executive board by December 15 “to show cause why its decision . . . should not be imposed.” The letter further advised that if a hearing was requested the suspension would be stayed until the hearing was concluded. Upon receipt of the December 4 letter, Mr. Beck filed P-267-LU100-SCE.
In these protests, Mr. Beck reiterates his claim in Beck that the charges against him and Mr. Hooks were subject to arbitration under the Severance Pay Trust Fund Plan rather than a hearing before the GEB. The protester also contends that Mr. Lasita and Mr. Eick, as trustees of the Fund, are interested parties who are bound by the Plan to arbitrate the dispute with Mr. Hooks and the protester.
In In Re: Beck, 95 - Elec. App. - 44 (KC) (December 18, 1995) the Election Appeals Master found that barring the protester from running for delegate “is not only consistent with the text of the GEB decision and the Election Rules, but with the GEB’s broader objective under the Consent Decree of ridding the IBT of corruption.” In that decision, the Election Appeals Master addressed the same claim made in these protests that the GEB acted in concert with Mr. Beck’s opponents in Local Union 100 for the purpose of keeping him from running for local union office as well as delegate. The Election Appeals Master denied Mr. Beck’s protest, stating that Mr. Beck “offered only conclusory allegations to support his claim that an Election Rules violation occurred.”
James A. Beck
January 3, 1996
Page 1
Article VIII, Section 11 of the Rules guarantees all members the right “to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office . . .” and establishes parameters for the exercise of this right. Section 11(f) specifically prohibits retaliation by the IBT or any subordinate entity, “against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules.” The Rules thus prohibit retaliation for
engaging in election-related conduct protected by the Rules. In Re: Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995).
Alleged violations of Section 11(f) are not sustainable, however, unless there is some evidence which connects, expressly or through reasonable implication, the protested conduct with the exercise of a guaranteed right under the Rules. Giacumbo, P-100-IBT-PNJ (October 13, 1995). See also, Robbins, et al., P-013-IBT-SCE et seq. (June 30, 1995), aff’d, In Re: Murphy, 95 - Elec. App. - 3 (KC) (July 26, 1995); Giacumbo, P-177-IBT-PNJ (November 2, 1995).
The conclusion of the Election Appeals Master cited above applies equally to Cases P-262 and P-267. There is no evidence that the suspension of the protester from membership was motivated by unlawful considerations. Rather, the facts show that the executive board acted for the legitimate purpose of enforcing the decision of the GEB. In addition, the executive board has given the protester an opportunity to request a hearing about the suspension. Similarly, there is no evidence that Mr. Lasita and Mr. Eick violated the protester’s right to run for delegate in violation of the Rules by failing to arbitrate the dispute in connection with the Severance Pay Trust Fund.
On December 18, 1995, Mr. Beck received a letter from UPS stating that his employment “is terminated immediately” due to his suspension from membership by Local Union 100, in accordance with the National Master United Parcel Service Agreement. The protester did not submit any evidence establishing a relationship between his termination and any election related activity. Moreover, the Election Officer has been advised that Mr. Beck was reinstated to him employment on December 19, 1995.
For the reasons set forth above, the protests are DENIED.
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.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
James A. Beck
January 3, 1996
Page 1
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
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator