April 3, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Thomas J. Baron
1935 Jackson Street
Portage, IN 46368
Vincent Allen, Vice President
Teamsters Local Union 142
1300 Clark Road
Gary, IN 46404
Re: Election Office Case No. P-563-LU142-CHI
Gentlemen:
Thomas Baron, a member of Local Union 142 and a candidate for delegate from Local Union 142, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protester alleges that Vincent Allen, vice president of Local Union 142, threatened Mr. Baron’s life while speaking with another local union member. The Election Officer deferred the protest for post-election review pursuant to her authority under Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules.
Vincent Allen responds that a conversation took place in which he was discussing his planned candidacy for local union office, but that no threats were made.
Adjunct Regional Coordinator Dennis Sarsany investigated the protest.
Article VIII, Section 11(f), which prohibits retaliation or threat of retaliation for exercise of rights guaranteed by the Rules, provides:
Thomas J. Baron
April 3, 1996
Page 1
Retaliation 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 is prohibited.
On February 16, 1996, Mr. Barnett, a member of Local Union 142, happened to meet Mr. Allen at a local automobile dealership. He recognized Mr. Allen, approached him, and they engaged in a general conversation covering several topics. Among the topics discussed were local union politics and Mr. Baron’s candidacy for delegate and prospective candidacy for local union office. According to Mr. Allen, he commented on Mr. Baron’s inadequate performance as a former local union business agent, and considered Mr. Baron’s newly aggressive unionism interesting. He remembers saying that Mr. Baron’s candidacy was an attempt to “come back in and act like a union man.” Mr. Allen states Mr. Baron was mentioned in a casual conversation.
Mr. Barnett’s statements about this conversation confirm that it was social small talk, and that Mr. Baron’s candidacy was one of the topics discussed. He stated that Mr. Allen commented that if Mr. Baron successfully obtained local union office “that will be his last day.” He understood this to be an off-hand comment, and not a threat. Another witness standing with them heard these words as “that will be the day.”
On February 26, Mr. Barnett told Mr. Baron about this conversation with Mr. Allen. According to Mr. Barnett, Mr. Baron overreacted. As Mr. Barnett put it, in construing
Mr. Allen’s words as a threat, in violation of the Rules, Mr. Baron “took it to the hilt.”
The Election Officer finds, under these circumstances, that the evidence shows that
Mr. Allen did not utter an intentional threat against Mr. Baron. The encounter between
Mr. Allen and Mr. Barnett was fortuitous, and the conversation between them, initiated by
Mr. Barnett, was casual rather than heated or purposeful.
Threatening words or actions between supporters of opposing candidates in the context of ongoing animosity, and without a fight erupting, do not necessarily violate the Rules. Dunn,
P-110-LU25-BOS (July 28, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 8 (KC) (August 21, 1995). See also Torpey, P-162-LU305-PNW (October 31, 1995) (“You’ll get yours on the 21st” not a threat in violation of the Rules); Scott, P-1092-LU745-SOU (November 21, 1991) (“Come into the locker room and let’s get it on” construed not to violate the Rules).
Accordingly, the protest is 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:
Thomas J. Baron
April 3, 1996
Page 1
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 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
Dennis Sarsany, Adjunct Regional Coordinator