Peyton & Padellaro, 2021 ESD 122
OFFICE OF THE
ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE:
JEFF PADELLARO, ) Issued:
)
OES Case No. P-142-051921-AT
__________________________________)
Election Supervisor
representative
Findings of
Fact and Analysis
Article VII, Section 4 of the Rules
grants each accredited candidate for International office “the right to request
and receive from the Election Supervisor a list of all certified delegates with
corresponding addresses.” Delegates
serve as their local union’s representatives to the IBT convention, which is “the
supreme governing authority of the International Union.”
A principal purpose
of each accredited candidate’s right to the list of certified delegates is to
permit the candidate to solicit support for the candidate’s nomination and
platform at the convention. OES prepares
and updates the list as delegate and alternate delegate elections of local
unions are certified. The list is issued
to requesting candidates entitled to them on a periodic basis. The list is arranged by local union number
and compiles the name, mailing address, and email address of each certified delegate
and alternate delegate. The data for the
list is drawn from the candidate information sheets candidates for delegate and
alternate delegate completed upon nomination at their local unions. For email addresses, the Rules do not dictate
that a candidate who is an officer or employee of a local union and who uses
both a personal and a union-provided email address for email communication must
list his/her personal email address or prohibit listing his/her union-provided
email address. The sole requirement is
that candidates provide a reliable means by which they may be contacted.
Protestors Peyton
and Padellaro are the principal officers of their respective local unions. Each was nominated for delegate, and each
listed his union-provided email address on the candidate information sheet he
prepared upon being nominated. Each was
elected, the election certified, and the information contained on each
protestor’s candidate information sheet was entered on the certified delegate
list.
Maria Perez is a
candidate for IBT East region vice president on the Teamster Power slate. She was accredited as a candidate for that
office on September 21, 2020. On May 18,
2021, she sent an email message to certified delegates and alternate delegates in
the East region concerning her campaign for International office. The message invited delegates to “an online event for Delegates and Alternate Delegates of the Eastern
Region for the first time to connect and have a conversation.” The message also invited delegates and
alternate delegates to an
in-person lunch fundraiser.
Each protestor contended that
Perez’s action in emailing him at his local union email address violated the
Rules because she used a union resource – the email address provided by the
local union – to support her campaign.
Generally, a candidate may not send solicitations for campaign support to
local union officials and employees at their union addresses – whether postal
or email – unless the solicitations are intended for display on literature
tables or bulletin boards governed by Article VII, Section 7(h). Ostrach & Mandaro, 2000 ESD 29 (October 2, 2000), aff'd, 00 EAM 7
(October 10, 2000); Reyes, 2010 ESD 59 (December 22, 2010); Teamster
Power, 2021 ESD 6 (July 10, 2020). The Perez email solicited
support from Peyton and Padellaro directly; she did not request that the
communication be placed on either local union’s literature table.
Nonetheless, we find no
violation of the Rules. We rely on our
decision in Hoffa 2006, 2006 ESD 326 (July 18, 2006), where we held that mailing campaign literature to elected
delegates at local union postal addresses did not violate the Rules because the
delegates had listed those addresses as the locations where they could be
contacted for that purpose. We explained
this holding as follows:
The central purpose of the Rules provision permitting
accredited candidates to obtain certified delegate lists is identical to that
underlying the provision that permits candidates to obtain union membership lists
– it allows candidates to campaign among and solicit support for their
candidacies directly from members who will vote on whether the candidates will
be nominated to the ballot in the International officer election. To suggest, as the protest did, that an
accredited candidate may not mail campaign literature to the address a
certified delegate has listed, if the listed address is that of the local
union, would impermissibly interfere with the candidate’s ability to solicit
support among all delegates and alternate delegates.
In reaching this conclusion, we recognize the tension in
the Rules between the broad prohibition on use of union resources for
campaigning – including the prohibition on use of a local union address for
distribution of campaign material embodied in Ostrach, 2000 EAD 29
(October 2, 2000), aff’d, 00 EAM 07 (October 10, 2000) – and the right
of accredited candidates for International office to obtain names and contact
information for certified delegates and alternate delegates under Article VII,
Section 4. In balancing these
provisions, we hold that an accredited candidate is permitted to contact
delegates and alternate delegates at any addresses those persons list -
including local union addresses – where the contact is made to those persons in
their capacities as delegates or alternate delegates. Accredited candidates may not otherwise
contact those persons for a campaign purpose at the local union addresses they
list, except in their capacities as delegates and alternate delegates, without
including the disclaimer required by our advisory on literature tables and
bulletin boards.
The decision in Hoffa 2006
concerned mailing campaign material to delegates at local union postal addresses. The protests here concern emailing the material
to them at local union email addresses. We
discern no principle that would permit the use of the postal addresses in Hoffa
2006 and prohibit them here, where the delegates themselves listed the
union-provided email addresses as the means by which they could be contacted in
their capacity as delegates.
For these reasons, we DENY these
protests.
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
2021
ESD
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED):
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
Brian Peyton
peytonbrian@hotmail.com
Jeff Padellaro
Jeffpadellaro2@gmail.com
Joe Childers
jchilders@ibtvote.org
Peter Marks
pmarks@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com