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

              January 26, 1999




Robert L. Doss

January 26, 1999

Page 1


Robert L. Doss

12535 Aspenview Street

Victorville, CA 92392


Ed J. Mireles, Sec.-Treas.

Teamsters Local Union 952

140 S. Marks Way

Orange, CA 92868


Robert M. Baptiste, Esq.

Baptiste & Wilder

1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036


Jack D. Cox

P.O. Box 92886

Long Beach, CA 90809


Randy Cammack

P.O. Box 679

Bloomington, CA 92316


Metz Slate

c/o Jim Smith

2833 Cottman Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19149

George O. Suggs, Esq.

Wilburn & Suggs

1015 Locust, Suite 818

St. Louis, MO 63101


Hoffa Slate

c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.

Baptiste & Wilder

1150 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036


James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098


Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,

  Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

Robert L. Doss

January 26, 1999

Page 1



Re: Election Office Case No. PR-402-LU952-EOH




Robert L. Doss

January 26, 1999

Page 1


Robert L. Doss, a member of Local Union 63, 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 Edward J. Mireles, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 952 and a candidate for vice-president in the IBT International Officer election.  The protester alleges that during an official union meeting Mr. Mireles made disparaging comments about other candidates in the International Officer Rerun Election, allowed his supporters to campaign for him, and distributed campaign material, all in violation of the Rules.  Despite numerous requests, Mr. Mireles did not submit a response to the protester’s allegations.  The Election Officer deferred this protest for post-election review pursuant to his authority under Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules.


The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.


On November 8, 1998, Mr. Mireles attended a contract ratification meeting at Local Union 952's meeting hall.  Approximately 75 members of Local Union 952 were in attendance.  During the course of the meeting, Mr. Mireles made several “disparaging remarks” about Jack Cox and Randy Cammack, opposing candidates for vice-president in the International Officer Rerun Election.  According to the protester, Mr. Mireles characterized Messrs. Cox and Cammack as acting in collusion with the employer to the detriment of Local Union 952 members.  At no time did Mr. Mireles mention the IBT International Officer Rerun Election  or refer to the fact that he and Messrs. Cox and Cammack were candidates in the election.


Near the end of the meeting, two members started chanting the name of Mr. Mireles.  According to the protester, while Mr. Mireles did not initiate or encourage the chanting, he made no attempt to stop the two members.  While members were leaving the meeting hall, four business agents from Local Union 952 were distributing campaign literature in support of the candidacy of Mr. Mireles.  Two of the business agents were located inside of the union hall and two were located outside.  No other literature in support of any other candidate was being distributed at the same time.


Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4) states that:


A Local Union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor of or against any candidate in conjunction with its meetings or otherwise.  This requirement shall apply not only to formal presentations by or on behalf of candidates but also to informal campaign activities, such as, for example, comments on candidates during meetings, literature distribution at meetings, literature distribution tables, etc.


With respect to the distribution of campaign literature, Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules states the following:


Robert L. Doss

January 26, 1999

Page 1


All Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to . . . support or oppose any candidate, [and] to aid or campaign for any candidate. . . .  This includes, but is not limited to, the right to distribute campaign literature and to otherwise solicit support for a member’s candidacy outside a meeting hall before, during and after a Union meeting, regardless of Union policy, rule or practice.


While the Rules grant members the right to campaign outside a union hall, the right to campaign inside a union hall depends on past practice.  Article VIII, Section 11(d) provides:


[N]o restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fund-raising events or engage in similar activities on . . . Union premises.  Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a nondiscriminatory basis.


In the instant case, the Election Officer finds that the remarks about Messrs. Cox and Cammack made by Mr. Mireles do not constitute a Rules violation due to the lack of any nexus to the International Officer Rerun Election.  Furthermore, the supporters of Mr. Mireles had the right to campaign outside the entrance to the union hall.  In this context, however, where the members chanted Mr. Mireles’ name during the union meeting, and distributed campaign literature of only Mr. Mireles, and no other candidates, in the union hall, those acts clearly constitute improper campaign activity in violation of the Rules.


Regardless of the past practice of Local Union 952, the Election Officer notes that the meeting was originally planned for the purpose of contract ratification, not for campaigning, and that other candidates would therefore have not had any knowledge of the potential opportunity to campaign.  No evidence was provided by Mr. Mireles or on his behalf, showing that other candidates received notice. 


Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the Rules states in relevant part that “if campaigning during [a local union meeting] is permitted, the Local Union shall notify all candidates for the positions for which such campaigning will be permitted of the opportunity to speak at least five (5) days prior to the meeting . . . .”   Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that as other candidates were not notified of the fact that campaigning would be permitted during the Local Union 952 contract ratification meeting, Mr. Mireles and Local Union 952 violated the Rules.


These matters are being considered in a post-election context.  Therefore, the Election Officer will examine whether the violations “may have affected the outcome of the election.”  As the Election Officer previously stated in Cheatem, Post-27-EOH (August 21, 1997):


Robert L. Doss

January 26, 1999

Page 1


[A supervised] election is presumed to be fair and regular.  Therefore, in order to grant a post-election protest, the evidence must overcome this presumption by demonstrating a violation of the Rules that may have affected the outcome of the election.  This is consistent with DOL’s standard for certification of supervised elections.


Id. at 105.


Mr. Mireles lost in his bid for election as International vice-president, receiving a total of 2,512 votes.  Mr. Cox also lost, receiving a total of 26,133 votes.  Mr. Cammack was elected as an International vice-president, receiving 184,421 votes.  It is clear from these margins that even if the violations of the Rules by Mr. Mireles had convinced all of the approximately 75 members present at the contract ratification meeting to vote for him exclusively, that would have had no effect upon the final results.  Thus, the Election Officer concludes that the violations committed by Mr. Mireles did not affect the outcome of the International Officer Rerun Election.  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.






Michael G. Cherkasky

Election Officer


cc:               Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master