February 2, 1999
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Sue Yocum
February 2, 1999
Page 1
Sue Yocum
17800 Chorvat Avenue
Spring Hill, FL 34610
Kenneth W. Wood, President
Teamsters Local Union 79
5818 E. MLK Jr. Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33619
Brian Rothman, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 79
5818 E. MLK Jr. Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33619
Bob Meeks, Business Agent
Teamsters Local Union 79
5818 E. MLK Jr. Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33619
Sue Yocum
February 2, 1999
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-428-LU79-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Sue Yocum, a member of Local Union 79, 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 Ken Wood, president, Brian Rothman, secretary-treasurer, and Bob Meeks, a business agent of Local Union 79. The protester alleges that Messrs. Wood, Rothman and Meeks have intentionally harassed, embarrassed and humiliated her in retaliation for filing the protest in Yocum, PR-288-LU79-SEC (November 9, 1998).[1]
Sue Yocum
February 2, 1999
Page 1
Mr. Wood denies that he, or that Messrs. Rothman or Meeks has intentionally harassed, embarrassed and humiliated the protester in retaliation for filing protest PR-288.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Kathryn A. Naylor.
- Mr. Rothman’s Focus on the Protester’s Mistake
The protester contends that on November 21, 1998, at a membership meeting, Mr. Rothman intentionally harassed and embarrassed her by focusing in great detail on a mistake she made while addressing the general body. The protester states that at a prior membership meeting, she reported on a conversation with Southern Region vice-president Doug Mims regarding the IBT’s reasons for not providing financial support for the local union’s organizing efforts and in doing so she inadvertently mischaracterized Mr. Mims’ statements. At the November 21, 1998 membership meeting, Mr. Rothman read Mr. Wood’s letter to Mr. Mims seeking clarification or verification of what the protester had reported, and Mr. Mims’ response to Mr. Wood’s letter. The protester contends that reading both letters at the membership meeting in this manner was not necessary and was done to humiliate her for filing protest PR-288.
Mr. Wood admits that Mr. Rothman read the letters then asked the protester whether she wanted to respond. Mr. Wood claims that after the protester said no, Mr. Rothman moved on to other matters. Mr. Wood maintains that reading correspondence in this manner is routinely done at membership meetings. Gus Martinez and Bill Fowler, witnesses provided by the protester who attended the meeting, stated that at every membership meeting, significant correspondence is usually read to the body. None of the witnesses suggested that the protester's previous complaint to the Election Office was mentioned or even referred to indirectly in the November 21 meeting.
The Election Officer concludes that reading the letters at issue during the membership meeting was done as a matter of routine practice and the investigation revealed no evidence that the letters were read in retaliation for the protester's filing of PR-288.
Sue Yocum
February 2, 1999
Page 1
- Conversation with Mr. Rothman regarding Fundraiser
The protester contends that after the November 21, 1998 meeting, Mr. Rothman displayed a great deal of anger during a heated discussion regarding the local union’s contribution to the Central Labor Council (“CLC”). Ms. Yocum is a delegate on behalf of the local union to the CLC. The protester claims that when she presented a plaque from the CLC to the local union in recognition of the local union’s contribution of $100 for the United Way’s golf fundraiser, she stated that she hoped the local union would contribute more in the future. The protester claims that after the meeting, Mr. Rothman spoke to her in a very nasty and angry tone when he informed her that the local union contributes $100 because the CLC contributes only $100 to the local union’s golf fundraiser. Inez Hoover, a witness for the protester, corroborated the protester’s claim that Mr. Rothman used a very nasty tone to make his point regarding the local union’s contribution to the United Way’s fundraiser, however, Ms. Hoover stated that she has not heard any local union officers speak about the protester filing PR-288.
Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules provides as follows:
Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.
Although the protester was personally offended by Mr. Rothman's tone, the Election Officer finds that the evidence failed to establish any nexus between Mr. Rothman’s statements about the CLC contribution or his reading of the correspondence at the November 21, 1998 membership meeting, and Ms. Yocum’s filing of the protest in PR-288. Accordingly, the Election Officer concludes that the evidence fails to establish that Mr. Rothman retaliated against Ms. Yocum because she filed the protest in PR-288. The Election Officer also notes that Mr. Rothman did not engage in any threatening, intimidating or coercive conduct that would otherwise constitute a violation of the Rules.
- Argument with Mr. Meeks at the Meeting on November 21, 1998
Ms. Yocum contends that following the November 21, 1998 membership meeting that Mr. Meeks threw a chair and told her, “You can kiss my ass.” The protester admitted that Mr. Meeks did not throw the chair at her. The protester claims that after the membership meeting, she and Mr. Meeks had a conversation regarding a grievance the protester intended to file involving Addie Harris, another steward at the protester’s worksite. The protester reported the conversation as follows:
Sue Yocum
February 2, 1999
Page 1
Meeks: I thought you and Addie were getting along better.
Protester: Only when we are not in the plant. Harris has this heartburn about me. You know Bob it's personal.
Meeks: No, I don't know.
Protester: You are aware of things and we have talked about this.
Meeks: I told you I don't let politics interfere with my job as a BA. [Meeks was screaming and gesturing with his finger in the protester’s face].
Protester: Bob, what politics, what are you talking about?
Meeks: I'm not going to talk about this. [Meeks then stood up, threw a chair and walked away from the protester].
Protester: You just don't want to deal with it.
Meeks: You can just kiss my ass.
Protester: I would just as soon kiss it as your ugly face.
The protester claims that Mr. Meeks has acted in this way with her in the past but never to this degree. The protester notes that usually when Mr. Meeks does not agree, he becomes angry and will refuse to speak about the matter at hand. Ms. Hoover witnessed the incident and corroborated the protester's version of the conversation; however, Ms. Hoover claims that Mr. Meeks merely picked up the chair and slammed it on the ground in the same place versus throwing it as the protester alleges.
The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(f), prohibit retaliation and the threat of retaliation by any person against a member for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules. The right of IBT members to file, free from retaliation, election protests or to provide evidence in support of protests, even protests found to be non-meritorious, goes to the heart of the safeguards mandated by the Rules and the consent order. In re: Sullivan, 95 - Elec. App. - 2 (KC) (July 14, 1995). The right to engage in political and campaign activities includes the right to be free from threats of violence. Lopez, P-456-LU743-CHI (April 10, 1996) (finding “I’ll kill you” to violate the Rules, in light of ongoing animosity between the parties). Kelly, P-600-LU705-CHI (March 27, 1991) (finding an aggressive threat to “kick their ass” made in a menacing manner to be harassment in violation of the Rules). A threat of physical violence for protected election activity, including filing of a protest, is chilling and cannot be tolerated.
Sue Yocum
February 2, 1999
Page 1
In the absence of harassment or a credible threat relating to protected activity, however, the Election Office will view even heated arguments as part of “the natural discourse that arises as a result of campaign related activities” and not retaliation under the Rules. 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), aff’d, 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 latter’s desk, did not constitute violation, as charged party “was not aggressive or violent, nor did he threaten aggression or violence in any way”).
The Election Officer finds that the protester's version of the argument between the protester and Mr. Meeks amounts to a "heated discussion" that does not violate the Rules. The Election Officer credits the testimony of Ms. Hoover that Mr. Meeks merely picked up the chair and slammed it on the ground in the same place. The Election Officer notes that the protester did not claim that she felt threatened or intimidated by Mr. Meeks’ action in this regard. The investigation did not reveal any evidence that Mr. Meeks acted in retaliation for the protester filing PR-288, especially in light of the protester’s claim that Mr. Meeks has behaved in this manner on prior occasions.
- Problems with Mr. Meeks as a Business Agent
The protester alleges that Mr. Meeks does not return her telephone calls, has not responded to grievances filed in August and September, does not visit the Group Tech worksite and is not otherwise available to members at Group Tech, because she filed PR-288. The protester states that Mr. Meeks has acted in this manner since the summer. Ms. Hoover, an alternate steward at Group Tech, corroborated the protester's statement and also noted that Mr. Meeks has acted in this manner since May or June, 1998. Mr. Wood denies the protester’s claims that Mr. Meeks is not responding to the protester’s calls regarding grievances and attending to other union business.
The Election Officer finds that the protester’s claim that Mr. Meeks is not fulfilling his duties as her business agent in retaliation for filing PR-288 is not supported by the timing of the events at issue. The protester filed PR-288 with the Election Office on August 31, 1998. However, the protester and Ms. Hoover claim that Mr. Meeks has allegedly not responded to their calls and grievances since May or June, 1998. Mr. Meeks alleged non-responsiveness towards the protester precedes the protester’s filing of PR-288 and therefore cannot be considered retaliation for the protester filing PR-288. This complaint concerns the administration of the Local Union's business and is not within the Election Officer's jurisdiction.
Sue Yocum
February 2, 1999
Page 1
The protester also alleges that in late October or early November, Mr. Meeks did not notify the protester that he had scheduled grievance meetings with the Human Resources Manager and as result the protester was not prepared for the meetings. The Election Officer notes that the protester filed this protest on November 24, 1998 and not within two working days of becoming aware of the protested conduct as required by the Rules. Accordingly, the Election Officer finds this aspect of the protest untimely.
Based on the foregoing, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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 North Capitol Street, NW, 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
[1] In Yocum, PR-288-LU79-SEC (November 9, 1998) aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 406 (KC) (November 20, 1998), the Election Officer held that Mr. Wood, certain other officers and employees of Local Union 79 violated the Rules by improperly using union resources in conducting its Labor Day picnic to support the candidacies of Mr. Wood, a candidate for Southern Region vice-president on the Hoffa Unity Slate (“Hoffa Slate”), and James Hoffa. The Election Officer also found that campaign paraphernalia was improperly displayed in the union’s offices and that Mr. Wood and the Leo Krug, vice-president of the local union, improperly wore campaign paraphernalia at a public rally conducted for Citrus County employees. The Election Officer ordered the campaigns of Messrs. Wood and Hoffa to pay the local union $500 for the improper use of union resources at the Labor Day picnic. Additionally, the officers and business agents of the local union were ordered to cease and desist in displaying campaign paraphernalia on union property and in wearing campaign paraphernalia when meeting with unrelated third parties or at public appearances.