IN RE: KEITH PASCALE,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 157
Issued: February 8, 2001
OEA Case No. PR012914NE
Keith Pascale, a member of Local 443, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). Pascale alleges that the holding of Local 443's nomination meeting in inclement weather on January 21, 2001 was improper, and asks that the meeting results be set aside and a new nomination meeting ordered.
Election Administrator representative David Reilly investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
On the morning of Sunday, January 21, 2001, Local 443 held its scheduled nomination meeting for delegates to the IBT International Convention in New Haven, Connecticut. A major snowstorm that had occurred in that area caused a marked drop-off in attendance at the nomination meeting. The snowfall was not unexpected, as media had predicted rain and snow for that Sunday several days before the meeting.
Local 443 secretary-treasurer Tony Buonpane was interviewed by our investigator and relayed that during his tenure no local union meeting has ever been cancelled due to inclement weather, as it would not be possible to timely inform the local union's geographically dispersed membership of the cancellation. Our investigation also confirmed that no written nominations, seconds or acceptances were received by Local 443, despite the provisions of Article II, Section 5(f) and (h) for the submission of the same.
As we held in Shifflet, 2001 EAD 147 (February 8, 2001), the failure to take the precautionary measure of sending written nominations, seconds, and acceptances is not excused by the fact that predicted, inclement weather arose on the day of the nomination meeting. Fulp, P297 (January 26, 1996). That precedent requires rejection of the instant protest.[1]
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is DENIED.
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. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Administrator in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
Suite 1000
885 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Fax: 212-751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 727 15th Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, all within the time period prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Election Administrator
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2001 EAD 157
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA UPS NEXT DAY AIR:
Patrick Szymanski
IBT General Counsel
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
J. Douglas Korney
Korney & Heldt
30700 Telegraph Road
Suite 1551
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Barbara Harvey
Penobscot Building
Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
Suite 800
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach
110 Mayfair
Eugene, OR 97404
IBT Local 443
200 Wallace St.
New Haven, CT 06511
Keith Pascale
940 Middletown Avenue
North Haven, CT 06473
David F. Reilly
22 W. Main St.
North Kingstown, RI 02852
[1] The protestor also challenges the fact that the meeting commenced at the scheduled time of 10:00 a.m., rather than being delayed for ten minutes, as he says often occurs when there is bad weather. And, the protestor challenges the fact that Buonpane excused the local's stewards from further attendance at the meeting after the roll call of the local union executive board. Neither challenge states a claim for violation of the Rules.