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

Maertz, 2021 ESD 54


for the



IN RE: GRANT MAERTZ,                         )           Protest Decision 2021 ESD 54

                                                                        )           Issued: February 4, 2021

Protestor.                                           )           OES Case Nos. P-062-012621-FW

____________________________________)                       & P-063-012621-FW


Grant Maertz, member of Local Union 952 , filed separate pre-election protests pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  Protest P-062-012621-FW alleged that Local Union 952 failed to honor his request for a list of worksites under the local union’s jurisdiction, which the Rules require the local union to produce.  Protest P-063-012621-FW alleged that Local Union 952 failed to permit Maertz the opportunity to inspect and make notes on collective bargaining agreements covering any member of the local union, as the Rules require.


Election Supervisor representative Michael Miller  investigated these protests.  They were consolidated for decision.


Findings of Fact and Analysis


Local Union 952 conducted its nominations meeting on January 20, 2021.  That day, Protestor Maertz, a nominated candidate for delegate, presented separate written requests to Eric Jimenez, local union principal officer, the first for a list of all worksites where members of Local Union 952 are employed, and the second to inspect and make notes on all collective bargaining agreements covering any member of the local union.  Receiving no response, Maertz filed his protests on January 26, 2021. 


Maertz as a delegate candidate is entitled on request to “a current list of all sites, with corresponding addresses, where any and all Union members work.”  Article VII, Section 1(b).  The request must be made in writing to the local union secretary-treasurer and “shall be honored within five (5) days.”


The purpose of the provision granting the right to worksite lists is to level the playing field by permitting candidates who are not local union officials to know where local union members work so they may effectively campaign among them face-to-face.  Martinez, 2011 ESD 223 (April 19, 2011); Halstead, 2016 ESD 246 (June 16, 2016).  The list the local union produces must be accurate.  Providing a list with even a few errors constitutes a violation.  Young, P426 (March 29, 1996). This is so even if the local attempted to comply in good faith.  Chentnik, P223 (December 18, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 52 (January 10, 1996); Viehland, 2006 ESD 271 (May 23, 2006), aff’d, 06 EAM 47 (June 21, 2006) (local union violated Rules by producing worksite list that had not been updated in 5 years and had nearly double the worksites listed than actually existed); Teamsters United, 2015 ESD 61 (December 19, 2015) (same); Halstead, 2016 ESD 211 (May 11, 2016) (remedy for LU’s failure to include on its worksite list an employer of 131 members is a union-funded mailing for the opposition slate).


Maertz as a delegate candidate is also entitled on request to inspect and make notes on collective bargaining agreements covering any member of the local union.  Article VII, Section 1(a).  As the rule states, the right is one of inspection, not production.


After the protests here were filed, Jimenez for the local union replied to Maertz’s requests on January 27, 2021 by asking him to provide three alternative dates he could come to the local union hall and receive the worksite list and inspect the collective bargaining agreements.  According to Jimenez’s letter, “We are requesting dates as to allow for ample time to gather the information requested.  This local Union, to the best of its ability and within the confines of the election rules, will attempt to make this a convenient process on your behalf.”  Maertz replied to Jimenez’s message and arranged to come to the local union hall on February 3, 2021 at 3 p.m.  On that date, the local union produced the worksite list and permitted inspection and making notes on the collective bargaining agreements, and Maertz exercised the rights the Rules grant him in these respects.  The local union ultimately honored Maertz’s requests for the worksite list and inspection of collective bargaining agreements.  In this case the information was provided, and the inspection allowed, several days after that action should have been completed under the rules.  However, no evidence was presented that the delay occurred for an improper purpose. 


A question arose concerning the recently negotiated and ratified contract with Albertsons.  The contract is not yet in final form and is undergoing a line-by-line review by teams from the union and management to insure that the agreement to be signed by the parties accurately incorporates the terms they negotiated.  This effort is proceeding deliberately.  The “red line” version was not produced to Maertz on February 3 because it is not in final form.  We conclude that this document, which is in the editing process, is not subject to inspection under Article VII, Section 1(a) because it is not a final document and therefore does not meet the accepted definition of a collective bargaining agreement, modification, supplement, rider, stipulation or appendix as those terms are used in the rule. 


Accordingly, we deem these protests RESOLVED.


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


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 54









Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters


Edward Gleason


Patrick Szymanski


Will Bloom


Tom Geoghegan


Rob Colone


Barbara Harvey


Kevin Moore


F.C. “Chris” Silvera


Fred Zuckerman


Ken Paff

Teamsters for a Democratic Union

Grant Maertz


Teamsters Local Union 952


Michael Miller


Deborah Schaaf


Jeffrey Ellison