2023 EAM 25 (re: ESD 188)

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2023 ESD 188 (ESD 188), which addresses a post-election protest by the 21 protestors named above, was issued on January 24, 2023 by the Election Supervisor.[1]  The protestors alleged that the IBT improperly terminated them from their union appointed positions in violation of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).  The Election Supervisor determined that the IBT did not violate the Rules and denied the protests.

On January 26, 2023, the Teamster Power slate appealed the decision.  On February 13, 2023, the Election Supervisor moved to dismiss the Teamster Power slate’s appeal for lack of standing.  On February 17th, the slate filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and, on February 21st, the Election Supervisor filed its reply.

Background

During the 2020-2021 International election cycle, the protestors were employed as organizers either with the IBT or by local unions.  Most supported the Teamster Power slate while a few remained publicly neutral.  On November 19, 2021, the O’Brien-Zuckerman slate prevailed in the election and defeated the Teamster Power slate of candidates.[2]  On March 22, 2022, the new administration was sworn in and, upon taking office, terminated the protestors from their positions as organizers.  The protestors have maintained that the terminations constituted political retaliation for not supporting the incoming administration in violation of the Rules.  See Article VII, 12(g) and Article XII.   

The Election Supervisor denied the protests and the Teamster Power slate appealed the decision.  As noted above, the Election Supervisor has moved to dismiss the Teamster Power slate’s appeal for lack of standing. 

Decision on Standing

            Article XIII, Section 3(f) provides that “protestor(s), the Union(s) involved, any adversely affected candidate(s), or any other person who or entity which is aggrieved of the determination of the protest may, within three (3) working days after receipt of the decision, appeal the decision to the Election Appeals Master.”  The Election Supervisor submits that the Teamster Power slate falls outside the scope of this rule and, therefore, has no standing to pursue the appeal.  In particular, the Election Supervisor argues that neither the Teamster Power slate nor its candidates were adversely impacted when the IBT terminated the 21 organizers for allegedly exercising their political rights.    

While both the Rules and prior election precedent grant a broad right to appeal protest decisions, that right is not without its limits.  An appellant must show that it was either a named party to the protest or that their substantive rights under the Rules were determined or affected by the protest decision.  See Castillo, 11 EAM 38 (April 20, 2011) and Grone, 2016 EAM 5 (January 13, 2016).  Although Teamster Power claims that it has standing because it supported and assisted the protestors in presenting their claims, Teamster Power has failed to establish that it was aggrieved by the determination of the Election Supervisor or that its substantive rights were affected.  

For these reasons, I find that the Teamster Power slate does not have standing to pursue the appeal and it is hereby dismissed.  All other scheduling orders previously issued in this matter are hereby withdrawn.

SO ORDERED,

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Elections Appeals Master

DATED:  February 28, 2023

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL):