Protest Decisions

              April 16, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

James Hession & Gary Gregory

April 16, 1996

Page 1

James Hession

431 Dunn Street

Plainfield, IN 46168

Gary Gregory

10815 Bakeway Drive

Indianapolis, IN 46231

The John Neal Slate

c/o John L. Neal, President

Teamsters Local Union 135

1233 Shelby Street

Indianapolis, IN 46203

James Hession & Gary Gregory

April 16, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case Nos.              P-713-LU135-SCE, P-714-LU135-SCE

Gentlemen:

Pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by two members of Local Union 135 who are candidates for delegate on the Members for Fair & Honest Representation (“Fair & Honest”) slate.  In P-713-LU135-SCE, James E. Hession alleges that Local Union 135 Recording Secretary Douglas L. Schmidt coerced two of Mr. Hession’s fellow slate members, James H. Shimp III and Steven L. Glaze, into signing a statement stating that they oppose their own slate and support the opposing slate, the John Neal (“Neal”) slate.  Mr. Schmidt is a Neal slate member.  Mr. Hession further contends that

James Hession & Gary Gregory

April 16, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Schmidt “misled over 15,000 Local 135 members along with Mr. Shimp and Mr. Glaze” by including the signed statement in a Neal slate campaign mailing.  In P-714-LU135-SCE, Gary L. Gregory alleges the same events and attributes the coercion to Local Union 135 President John Neal “and other Local 135 officers,” as well as Mr. Schmidt.  Both protests allege other acts of coercion against other members by listing the alleged victims, some with occurrence dates and some without.[1]  Because both of these protests involve the same incidents, the Election Officer consolidated them for consideration.

These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.

These protests represent a later stage in a slate affiliation controversy that the Election Officer has previously addressed.  Schmidt, P-590-LU135-SEC (March 19, 1996).  In that protest, Mr. Schmidt alleged that Mr. Gregory induced Messrs. Shimp and Glaze to sign a formal slate declaration affiliating with the Fair & Honest slate without fully and accurately disclosing what he was asking them to do.  The contentions of the parties were set forth in the decision as follows:

[Mr. Schmidt] states that Mr. Shimp later told him that he did not know that he was signing to run on a slate.  Mr. Glaze states that he made a mistake when he signed the slate declaration.  He contends that he believed he was going to attend an educational convention, rather than agreeing to be a delegate candidate. 

Mr. Glaze admits that he saw other names and signatures on the slate-declaration document, but says he failed to read the document.

The Election Officer denied the protest, noting that the slate declaration clearly stated its intent and effect.  The result of the Election Officer’s ruling was that Messrs. Shimp and Glaze were required to remain on the Fair & Honest slate, because Article IX, Section 2 of the Rules provides that slate declarations may not be retracted.

The current protests arise from Neal slate campaign literature signed by Messrs. Shimp and Glaze, in which they offer their version of why their names appear on the Fair & Honest slate, although they support the Neal slate.  The Notice is headed at the top as follows:  “Local 135 Members--Don’t Be Tricked and Mislead as We Were.”  The notice states, in pertinent part:

James Hession & Gary Gregory

April 16, 1996

Page 1

Gary Gregory . . . asked us if we would be interested in being a part of a group to help the local solve problems with the International at a meeting in July in Philadelphia.  He stated the local would pay for our travel, meals, and hotel if we would go.  Both of us are fairly new stewards and interested in helping the local, so we said “Yes” and signed a piece of paper.

The next thing we heard was that we were nominated on a “slate” that we knew nothing about.

The Notice also has the following sentence:  “We both support the ideals and experience of “The John Neal Slate” for delegates of Local 135, even though our names appear on the other slate.”

The protesters allege that Mr. Schmidt and other local union officers coerced

Messrs. Shimp and Glaze into signing this notice.  According to Mr. Hession, Mr. Schmidt was also coercive because he is the local union’s business agent at Messrs. Shimp and Glaze’s employer.

Messrs. Shimp and Glaze respond that Mr. Schmidt approached them with the notice, that they both read it, and that they both signed it.  They assert that they were “in no way” intimidated or coerced into signing and still believe that they were tricked into signing the Fair & Honest slate declaration.

The Election Officer scrutinizes claims of coercion and intimidation closely, because the more successful they are, the more reluctant witnesses are to come forward.  In this matter, the Election Officer finds no evidence that coercion or intimidation took place.

With respect to the list of alleged victims of other acts of coercion included in each protest, the Election Officer finds untimely any allegation concerning events in 1995 or 1991.  See Article XIV, Section 2 of the Rules.  Furthermore, the Election Officer finds that the protesters did not furnish any information with respect to any of these alleged incidents of coercion or intimidation.  The Rules at Article XIV, Section 1, impose on the protester the initial burden to present evidence that a violation has occurred.  See In Re: Chentnik,

95 - Elec. App. - 52 (KC) (January 10, 1996).

Accordingly, 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 Hession & Gary Gregory

April 16, 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 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

Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator