June 18, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Chris Schweitzer
10843 Lurline Avenue
Chatsworth, CA 91311
Rene Medrano, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 896
1616 W. 9th Street, Room 414
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Re: Election Office Case No. P-782-LU896-CLA
Gentlepersons:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Chris Schweitzer, a delegate and member of Local Union 896. Ms. Schweitzer alleges that Local Union 896 has refused to provide her with money equal to its cost of providing her with transportation to the IBT Convention, as required in the Election Officer’s Advisory Regarding Convention Expenses (“Advisory”) issued on May 2, 1996.
The local union responds that it acted in good faith to provide all necessary travel and hotel accommodations for its delegates at the lowest cost to the union. To that end, the local union purchased non-refundable airline tickets for all but one of its delegates.[1] These tickets were purchased prior to the promulgation of the Advisory. The local union states that it has no intent to inconvenience anyone, but has acted to fulfill its obligations under the Rules as economically as possible and cannot alter the travel arrangements.
Chris Schweitzer
June 18, 1996
Page 1
Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee investigated the protest.
In Section III, paragraph B of the Advisory, the Election Officer states:
The Local Union is also responsible for the travel expenses of its delegates and, if applicable, its alternates, for their transportation to and from Philadelphia.
Delegates and alternate delegates are not required to travel or utilize travel arrangements provided by the local union. In such cases, the delegates and alternate delegates are to be reimbursed by the local union for their actual costs . . . In no case, however, are the delegates and alternates entitled to reimbursements in an amount greater than the cost that would have been borne by the local union if the delegates or alternates had utilized the means of transportation arranged by the local union.
In her initial protest, Ms. Schweitzer stated that the travel plans made for her by the local union, in which she would depart for Philadelphia on July 13, 1996 and return on
July 20, 1996, would cause hardship for herself and her family. In her May 23, 1996 letter in support of her protest, Ms. Schweitzer states that she wishes to remain at work on July 13 and July 14, 1996 because she is entitled to higher pay during that weekend. She also states that the travel plans as prepared by the local union would prevent her husband, who is not a delegate, from traveling with her because he cannot leave until the evening of July 14, 1996.
After the filing of her protest, Regional Coordinator Gee contacted the protester and the local union to attempt to resolve the matter. On or about June 4, 1996, Ms. Schweitzer left a message for Ms. Gee to inform her that she no longer had an objection to departing on July 13, 1996, but that she wished to return to California “a couple of days later.” Ms. Gee contacted Northwest Airlines, the carrier with whom the local union had made its travel arrangements, to see if the airline could accommodate the protester’s request. A representative of Northwest explained that, because of the nature of the tickets purchased, no change could be made. After Ms. Gee explained the situation, however, the representative agreed to change the return date. Because Ms. Gee was not sure of the exact date on which the protester wished to return, she asked the representative to authorize the change to be made for a return between July 20 and 25, 1996.
Chris Schweitzer
June 18, 1996
Page 1
When Ms. Gee informed the protester of Northwest’s agreement to change the return date, Ms. Schweitzer stated that she really wanted to return on July 27, 1996. Ms. Gee again called Northwest and spoke to the same representative who graciously agreed to again extend the return date. Ms. Gee contacted Ms. Schweitzer to inform her that her latest request had been granted. Ms. Schweitzer then contacted Ms. Gee to inform her that she could not obtain the travel arrangements she wanted because Northwest refused to allow her to change her ticket to allow her to fly from Philadelphia to Milwaukee on July 20, 1996, and then from Milwaukee to California on July 27, 1996. Prior to this conversation, Ms. Schweitzer never expressed to Ms. Gee that she intended to travel to a function in Milwaukee immediately after the Convention.
In an effort to resolve the protest, Ms. Gee again called Northwest, but the airline refused to make any further alterations to travel plans which they had intended to be non-changeable in the first place. As a result, Ms. Schweitzer refused to withdraw her protest.
The evolving nature of Ms. Schweitzer’s allegations and requirements is troubling to the Election Officer. Article XIV, Section 2(d) of the Rules states, in relevant part:
All protests concerning preelection conduct shall be filed by sending the Election Officer and the Union(s) involved a clear and concise written statement of the alleged improper conduct. The protest should identify by name, address and telephone number each person who or entity which may be a subject of the protest. Such statement shall be delivered by personal delivery, by overnight mail, or by facsimile transmission with a copy sent by regular mail immediately thereafter, within the time limits prescribed by the Rules . . .
Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules requires protesters to file “within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested.” The short time limits are important to ensuring that alleged violations of the Rules are quickly brought to the attention of the Election Officer in order to afford the greatest opportunity for applying an effective remedy if a violation is found.
In the present case, Ms. Schweitzer, either through a reluctance to disclose her intended design or because of other factors, repeatedly changed the basis of her objection to the local union’s travel plans and the conditions she would accept to deem the protest resolved to her satisfaction. As a result, the basis on which she contends she has suffered unfair and disparate treatment are widely different from those she first provided to the Election Officer.[2] Issues of timeliness aside, however, the Election Officer will conduct the analysis relevant to the unusual facts on which Ms. Schweitzer’s allegations are based.
Chris Schweitzer
June 18, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer notes that local unions have a compelling interest in controlling travel costs as they act to comply with the requirements of the Advisory. In the present case, the local union acted in good faith to secure air travel for its delegates at the lowest possible cost to itself. As a result, the local union purchased air passage which was non-refundable prior to the Election Officer’s issuance of the Advisory. The Election Officer will not now penalize the local union because it attempted to economically provide this service for its delegates. The protester would have the local union pay her the value of the tickets it has already purchased so that she could apply this money to the costs of travel she obtained independently, even though such a result would force the local union to essentially pay for her airfare twice.
Such a result would be substantially unfair to the local union, especially given the fact that the protester does not now object to the departure date assigned in the travel package purchased by the local union, as she did in her initial protest. The protester has informed the Regional Coordinator that she would be willing to leave for Philadelphia on July 13, 1996, but that she wished the return flight itinerary prepared by the local union to be altered so that she could fly to Milwaukee on July 20, 1996.
Based on these specific facts, the Election Officer determines that the travel arrangements made by Local Union 896 are adequate for Ms. Schweitzer’s attendance at the convention. Her objection to the itinerary stems from the fact that the current plan makes it inconvenient or expensive for her to attend a function, which is not the IBT Convention, in Milwaukee. The local union is not required to subsidize Ms. Schweitzer’s activities outside the Convention week in Philadelphia.
Further, there is no evidence of disparate treatment between the various delegates. The sole arrangement made other than the one provided for the protester is an instance where the local union could save money if it converted a pre-paid unused ticket. Otherwise, all delegates were treated the same, as required by the Advisory.
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:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Chris Schweitzer
June 18, 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
Dolly M. Gee, Regional Coordinator
[1]Delegate Claudia Settle’s airfare was paid for in part by a ticket originally purchased so that she could attend a Local Union 896 executive board meeting, but was never used. The value of this ticket was converted to apply to her fare to and from Philadelphia.
[2]Ms. Schweitzer memorialized this alteration of her contentions in a letter to Ms. Gee, dated June 6, 1996, in which she states her intention to “clarify” her protest. In the letter, she argues that the issue of why she wanted to make her own travel plans is irrelevant because the local is required by the Advisory to reimburse her for doing so regardless of her intentions.