October 5, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mario Garza
October 5, 1998
Page 1
Mario Garza
1759 S. Prospect Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Phil Armstrong, Business Agent
Teamsters Local Union 431
1140 W. Olive
Fresno, CA 93728
Jimmy D. Hammock, President
Teamsters Local Union 431
1140 W. Olive
Fresno, CA 9372
Mario Garza
October 5, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-120-LU431-PNW
Gentlemen:
Mario Garza, a member of Local Union 431, 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 Phil Armstrong, recording secretary and business agent of Local Union 431. Mr. Garza alleges that Mr. Armstrong filed internal union charges against the protester in retaliation for a protest he filed in Garza, PR-103-LU431-PNW
(May 29, 1998).
Mr. Armstrong responds that he filed the charges with the local union over a month before being advised of the protest in PR-103, and therefore, the charges were unrelated to Mr. Garza's protest.
This protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Paige Keys.
Mr. Armstrong supports James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, in the International officer election. Mr. Garza does not support Mr. Hoffa. In a letter dated
Mario Garza
October 5, 1998
Page 1
April 14, 1998, Mr. Armstrong sent a letter to Jim Bishop, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 431, charging Mr. Garza with violating Article XXIX of the local union by-laws ("Obligation"). Specifically, Mr. Armstrong wrote that, "On April 2, 1998, Mario Garza of Certified Grocers made the remark to Brother Darrell Pratt that the Local Union's Officers were 'stealing money' from the Local." On May 7, 1998, the local union held an executive board meeting. The minutes of the meeting reflect the following action:
Recording Secretary Armstrong presented to the Executive Board for approval, charges filed against Mario Garza of GGMC. There being no objections, Secretary-Treasurer Bishop agreed to send the charges to Mario Garza.
On May 18, 1998, Mr. Armstrong wore a Hoffa t-shirt to a grievance meeting, which formed the basis of the protest filed by the protester on May 19, 1998 in PR-103.[1] In a letter dated May 26, 1998, Mr. Bishop advised the protester of the internal union charges filed by Mr. Armstrong and scheduled a hearing on July 2, 1998. On June 8, 1998, the protester filed the instant protest alleging that the internal union charges were in retaliation for the filing of the protest in PR-103.
The Election Officer has consistently held that the right to file a protest “go[es] to the heart of the safeguards mandated by the Rules and the Consent Order.” Sullivan,
P-084-LU745-SCE (June 10, 1995) (quoting In Re: Puglisi, P-1074-LU64-ENG
(November 25, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 242, aff’d, 88 c.v. 4486, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. 1992)); Crawley, P-098-LU088-PNJ (June 30, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 1
(July 14, 1995); Hoffa, P-264-IBT-SCE (January 11, 1995). Indeed, in Crawley, the Election Officer specifically found that the basis of internal union charges were in retaliation for a member's filing of a protest.
In this case however, the internal union charges appear to have been filed prior to the protester filing his charges with the Election Office. The protester argues that
Mr. Armstrong's letter dated April 14, 1998, was created after he filed PR-103 and backdated. As evidence, Mr. Garza contends that Mr. Armstrong's alleged April 14, 1998 letter has
Mr. Armstrong's signature impressed upon it. The local union states, however, that
Mr. Garza was not notified of the charges until after the May executive board meeting, the first meeting of the executive board after the charges had been filed.
While there is little question that there is hard feelings between Mr. Garza and
Mario Garza
October 5, 1998
Page 1
Mr. Armstrong that pre-date the filing of PR-103, the timing of the events in this case fails to sustain the protester's contention that the internal union charges are in retaliation for his filing of the protest. Indeed, the evidence is that the internal union charges, and the executive board meeting at which they were presented, pre-date the filing of the protest.
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
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 444 N. Capitol Street, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Paige Keys, Adjunct Regional Coordinator
[1]On May 29, 1998, the Election Officer issued his decision in Garza, PR-103-LU431-PNW, finding that Mr. Armstrong violated the Rules by wearing campaign paraphernalia to a grievance meeting with management. Mr. Armstrong was ordered to cease and desist from this conduct.