Eligibilty of Huitron, 2020 ESD 28
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF ) Protest Decision 2020 ESD 28
CHRISTOPHER HUITRON, ) Issued: October 19, 2020
) OES Case No. E-036-101020-SO
Local Union 769. )
____________________________________)
Steve Myers, member of Local Union 769, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protest alleged that Christopher Huitron is ineligible for nomination as delegate because he did not maintain 24 months of continuous good standing.
Election Supervisor representative Dolores Hall investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Rules provides that “to be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate or International Officer position, one must: (1) be a member in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one’s dues paid to the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments; (2) be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination; and (3) be eligible to hold office if elected.”
The nominations meeting for Local Union 769’s delegates and alternate delegates election was held October 10, 2020. Therefore, the 24-month period during which candidates must be in continuous good standing in order to be eligible for nomination ran from October 2018 through September 2020.
To assess whether Huitron maintained continuous good standing during the eligibility period, we reviewed TITAN records for dues payments, interviewed Huitron, and interviewed the TITAN operator and other officials of Local Union 769.
Huitron has been employed by UPS for more than 20 years, during which he has paid his dues by check-off authorization. For the period October 2018 through November 2019, Huitron’s dues were timely deducted by UPS and remitted to the local union pursuant to check-off.
UPS discharged Huitron on November 25, 2019. He filed a grievance protesting the discharge, and he met with local union business agents Mike Cortez and Dan Vera on December 4, 2019 to prepare the grievance for argument with management. At the preparatory meeting, Cortez gave Huitron a form to fill out titled “Application for Withdrawal Card.” Huitron completed the form, inserting his name, address, phone, SSN, employer, and last day worked in the appropriate spaces. In the space provided for stating the reasons for the request, Huitron wrote the following: “I am on a 07 status.” Huitron told our investigator that he completed the form because Cortez told him it was required, and that Cortez gave him words to write in the “reasons” section. Huitron told our investigator he did not know what 07 status was, but he was provided no understanding that form would interrupt his continuous good standing. He previously had emailed Cortez, telling him that he wanted “to keep my Union dues current.” According to Huitron, Cortez told him that signing the form would merely cause his dues not to accrue while his grievance was pending.
Cortez told our investigator that he told Huitron his dues obligation would be placed on hold while the grievance was pending, stating further that signing the form was standard practice at Local Union 769 for members protesting discharge. Cortez further told our investigator that he did not know the precise definition of the 07 code.
Huitron signed the form, and Cortez signed it as well. Local union president Roly Piña signed it two days later on December 6, 2019.
On January 10, 2020, Huitron and Cortez met with management on the grievance. At that meeting, UPS offered reinstatement with no backpay, and Huitron accepted the offer after consulting with Cortez. Huitron returned to work on Monday, January 13, 2020. His check-off authorization became operative again, and he maintained continuous good standing for the months January through September 2020.
The month at issue in this eligibility case is December 2020, when no dues were paid. The protestor contends that Huitron’s failure to pay dues during this month constituted an interruption in continuous good standing that rendered him ineligible for nomination.
Article II, Section 4(a)(1) of the IBT constitution states the 24-month continuous good standing requirement that is adopted into Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Rules.
Article II, Section 4(a)(4)(a)(1) of the IBT constitution provides that “[t]he requirement of continuous good standing and working in the jurisdiction and the obligation to take a transfer card or an honorable withdrawal card, as provided in this Constitution, shall not be applicable to any officer, employee, or member during a leave of absence granted to such officer, employee, or member with the approval of the Local Union Executive Board.” This provision is adopted into the Rules as well, at Article VI, Section 2(d), which provides that “[t]he requirements of continuous good standing and working in the jurisdiction may be excused or modified in the case of any officer, employee or member on leave of absence granted with the approval of the Local Union Executive Board on a nondiscriminatory basis.”
The status approved for Huitron for the period his discharge grievance was pending with UPS was 07, which is the TITAN system code for “On Leave.” We find that Huitron did not apply for honorable withdrawal status, for which the TITAN code is 03, even though the form he completed was titled “Application for Withdrawal Card.” We reach this conclusion because Cortez, the union business agent instructed Huitron to write code 07 status, i.e., on leave, on the form as the reason for the request. Cortez signed the form, approving the request for 07 leave status, and the local union president signed it as well, giving the local union’s affirmation to the request.
The local union’s TITAN operator affirmed to our investigator that this process is followed on a nondiscriminatory basis for every member who is discharged and is pursuing a grievance at Local Union 769. Such members are put on leave while the grievance is pending. This is the critical element for our holding because it demonstrates a broad policy determination that is applied to a category of members, those who are challenging their discharges through the grievance procedure. Had the leave status been devised and approved solely for Huitron and not for others similarly situated, we would have been constrained by the holding of Eligibility of Thompson, E-020-LU745-EOH (January 18, 1996), to find the leave ad hoc and not the result of broad policy applied on a non-discriminatory basis. Such a leave, were it granted uniquely to Huitron, would have constituted an interruption in continuous good standing because it would not meet the dictates of Article VI, Section 2(d). Such was the problem presented in Thompson, where the member requested that the local union grant him leave from his dues obligation because of illness, and the local union executive board granted it. Election Officer Quindel found the member ineligible nonetheless, viz.:
While a local union is free to waive the dues of members who are ill or incapacitated, the exception to eligibility requirements in Article VII, Section 2(e) of the Rules is only applicable when the local union executive board issues a formal leave of absence on a non-discriminatory basis.
The investigation here did not disclose a formal resolution of the local union executive board to grant Huitron leave. However, we find – based on the evidence provided by the TITAN operator, the business agent, and the local union president – that Local Union 769 maintains a broad and uniformly applied policy of placing on leave members who are challenging their discharges through the contractual grievance procedure and excusing their dues obligations for the duration of the approved leave. Because of the broad, non-discriminatory application of this policy, we find its application to Huitron did not interrupt his continuous good standing for the month of December 2019.
For these reasons, we DENY the protest and hold Huitron ELIGIBLE for nomination.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i). All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Barbara Jones
Election Appeals Master
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, all within the time prescribed above. Service may be accomplished by email, using the “reply all” function on the email by which the party received this decision. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones
2020 ESD 28
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
braymond@teamster.org
Edward Gleason
egleason@gleasonlawdc.com
Patrick Szymanski
szymanskip@me.com
Will Bloom
wbloom@dsgchicago.com
Tom Geoghegan
tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com
Rob Colone
rmcolone@hotmail.com
Barbara Harvey
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Kevin Moore
Mooregp2021@gmail.com
F.C. “Chris” Silvera
fitzverity@aol.com
Fred Zuckerman
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
ken@tdu.org
Christopher Huitron
christopherhuitron@gmail.com
Steve Myers
Stmyers769@aol.com
Teamsters Local Union 769
office@teamsterslocal769.org
Dolores Hall
dhall@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com