This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 22, 1996

 

 

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

 


Ted Hogue

October 22, 1996

Page 1

 

 

Ted Hogue

13407 82nd Street

Edmonton, Alberta T5E 2T9

 

Jerry Ewasuik

6 Gillingham Crescent

Sherwood Park, Alberta T8A 2X6


Mel Matvichuk

34 Westglen Crescent

Spruce Grove, Alberta T7X 1V9


Ted Hogue

October 22, 1996

Page 1

 

 

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-965-LU362-CAN

 

Gentlemen:

 

Ted Hogue, a member of Local Union 362, 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”) against Jerry Ewasiuk, also a member of Local Union 362.  The protester alleges that Mr. Ewasiuk interfered with his right to campaign at Canadian Freightways.  Mr. Ewasiuk holds the office of trustee at Local Union 362 and is a shop steward at Canadian Freightways.  He denies the charge.

 

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.

 

The investigation discloses that the protester and another member of Local Union 362, Mel Matvichuk, visited the Canadian Freightways’ Edmunton terminal on the morning of September 12, 1996.  With the permission of the Operations Manager, they distributed campaign literature supporting Mr. Carey for the office of general president. 

 

Mr. Ewasiuk entered the lunchroom and, according to the protester, announced that the material being distributed “better not be Ron Carey literature because he [Mr. Ewasiuk] was at the convention and knew what took place.”  The protester also states that Mr. Ewasiuk stated that he would  “throw all the literature in the garbage.” 

 


Ted Hogue

October 22, 1996

Page 1

 

 

Mr. Ewasiuk does not specifically deny the protester’s rendition of these facts, but affirmatively states that he did not throw any literature away.  The protester does not maintain that the interaction was confrontational or that he interpreted Mr. Ewasiuk’s remarks as a threat. There is no evidence that the protester or Mr. Matvichuk cut their campaign visit short due to

Mr. Ewasiuk’s comments or that Mr. Ewasiuk disposed of any campaign literature.

 

The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(f), prohibit retaliation or the threat of retaliation by any IBT member against another IBT member for exercising any guaranteed election-related right. This section is violated when members engage in physically or verbally aggressive behavior that threatens actual harm.  Passo, P-469-LU705-CHI et seq. (February 29, 1996) (finding intent to provoke physical confrontation violates Rules), affd in relevant part,

96 - Elec. App. - 124 (KC) (March 13, 1996).  The section does not proscribe the natural discourse that arises as a result of campaign-related activities, even if heated.  Furst, P-949-LU430-PNJ (October 9, 1996) (heated discussion between protester and charged party does not violate Rules).  See Dunn, P-110-LU25-BOS (July 28, 1995), affd, 95 - Elec. App. - 8 (KC) (August 21, 1995) (local union president did not violate Rules by following, hovering near and blocking path of campaigning member); Corriea, P-930-LU150-CSF (September 12, 1996) (fact that charged party, much taller than protester, stood over latters desk, did not constitute violation, as charged party was not aggressive or violent, nor did he threaten aggression or violence in any way).

 

  The protester and Mr. Metvichuk were campaigning in the lunchroom of the Canadian Freightways terminal with the consent of the Operations Manager.  There is no evidence to show that the protester or Mr. Metvichuk were threatened or restricted in any way in the exercising of their right to campaign.  Further, there is no indication that Mr. Ewasiuk interfered with the distribution of the campaign literature left in the lunchroom by the protester, or that he was physically or verbally aggressive.

 

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

 


Ted Hogue

October 22, 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