Protest Decisions

IN RE: ASHLEY McNEELY,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 254
Issued: March 22, 2001
OEA Case No. PR030212MW

See also Election Appeals Master decision 01 EAM 55 (KC)

Ashley McNeely, a member of Local 2000, 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"). McNeely alleges that certain election forms as submitted for the Local 2000 delegate election violate the Rules. She asks that certain delegate election candidates be removed as such, and, through her counsel Betty Grdina, asks that the Best Choice for Your Voice slate ("BC slate") be dissolved and that two candidates on that slate be removed from the ballot because of their involvement in an alleged forgery. Ballots in the Local 2000 delegate election are to be mailed on March 29, 2001. Due to the size of the local union electorate, such ballots are to be printed on March 23, 2001.

Election Administrator representatives Laurie Schwefel and Michael Nicholson investigated the protest.

The Rules Provisions

Article II, Section 9 of the Rules provides that candidates for delegate and alternate are permitted to seek nomination, be nominated, campaign and appear on the ballot as members of a slate of candidates, whether that slate is full or partial. "Slate" is defined in Paragraph 40 of the Definition Section of the Rules as any grouping by mutual consent of two or more candidates.

Article VIII of the Rules deals with the formation of slates. Article VIII, Section 1(b) provides that "[t]o form a slate, there shall be mutual consent between and among all candidates running on the slate. Such mutual consent shall be evidenced by the signing of a declaration by all members of the slate, giving the position that each candidate seeks and the name, if any, of the slate to be formed. Slate declaration forms for delegate and alternate delegate nominations and elections are to be submitted to the local union's secretary-treasurer (with a copy to the Election Administrator)." Article VIII, Section 1(c) provides that "[I]n the case of delegate and alternate delegate nominations and elections, such slate declaration shall be filed at the earliest possible date but in no event later than three (3) days after the local union's final delegate nomination meeting."

The Slate Declaration form provided by the Election Administrator provides the following instructions:

"IMPORTANT: All names and signatures of candidates forming a slate must be obtained on a single form. The name of all of the members of the slate must be entered before any signatures are entered. In addition, the exact count of candidates must be filled in below before any signatures are executed. To expand a slate, a complete new Slate Declaration form must be executed by each member of the slate."

The body of the Slate Declaration form reads:

"I, the undersigned, hereby affiliate with the slate of candidates listed below. I declare that I am a candidate for the position listed next to my name. I further declare that I have agreed to form a slate with all candidates listed, and that they have agreed to form a slate with me. I have confirmed that the figure filled in under 'Number of Candidates on Slate' (Required) above conforms with the number of candidates who are members of my slate and whose names appear below. I declare that I am a member in good standing of my Local Union and that I am not a member of another slate."

The instructions that appear on the Slate Declaration form are not reflected in the wording of the Rules themselves.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

We address McNeely's claims seriatim.

1. McNeely alleges that the nomination acceptance forms submitted by BC slate candidates Tim Dougherty and Nance Larson are not properly executed and that Dougherty and Larson may therefore not run as candidates in the local's delegate election. Copies of the forms in question are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. They contain signatures that, respectively, Dougherty and Larson have credibly affirmed to our investigator are their own. McNeely offers no contrary evidence. Instead, she claims that the nomination acceptances are deficient under Article II, Section 5(h) of the Rules because the candidates did not sign their names under the form's complimentary close, but only in the place on the form for the insertion of the accepting candidate's name. We reject this claim. Article II, Section 1(h) states no requirement as to signature placement. It states only that candidates may accept nomination in writing. Exhibits A and B comply. We DENY this aspect of the protest.

2. McNeely claims that the signatures of BC slate candidate Patricia Reller on the forms seconding and/or nominating BC slate candidates David Barrow-West, Al Peterson and Kathleen Sandvik, and on her own nomination acceptance form, are forgeries. Copies of these documents are attached hereto as Exhibits C, D, E and F. She relies solely upon the physical appearance of the signatures, and upon a comparison of the Reller signatures on these documents with Reller's signature on Local 2000 expense vouchers. Reller, corroborated by Greg Riffle, who saw Reller sign these documents, says the disputed signatures are hers. We find Reller's corroborated testimony credible. In addition, our non-expert physical comparison of these signatures with signatures of Reller we have obtained from her IRS form W-4 and an expense voucher (attached hereto as Exhibits G and H) creates no suspicion that Reller's signatures on these documents are forged. In particular, we note the striking similarity of the numerals contained in Reller's handwritten social security numbers on both the disputed and the undisputed documents. We accordingly DENY this aspect of the protest.

3. Last, McNeely asks that the BC slate be decertified and that Reller and Sandvik be removed from the ballot because of the alleged forgery of Reller's signature on the BC slate declaration form filed with the local union and the Election Administrator, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I. We DENY this protest allegation for the reasons set forth below.[1]

The BC slate members that spoke with our investigators told us that the slate members agreed to form a slate prior to a Local 2000 base representatives training session held in Minneapolis in January 2001. (Local 2000 members are employees of Northwest Airlines and Sun Country Airlines.) Since a majority of the BC slate members were to attend this meeting, the slate members agreed that those in attendance would get together in Minneapolis on their own time and sign the requisite forms for nominations, seconds and nomination acceptances, as well as the BC slate's slate declaration form. They in fact did so. Reller attended the meeting along with others, and signed these forms, and their slate declaration form, at that time.

Since not all BC slate members were at the Minneapolis gathering, BC slate candidate Greg Riffle put together what he referred to in his interview with our investigator as a "mail tree." That is, he mailed a copy of the incomplete but original slate declaration form to the first of those who had yet to sign, with directions to sign the original document and then mail to the next person on a list of those to sign that accompanied the mailing. Accompanying the slate declaration form were nomination acceptance forms to be signed by the mail tree recipients.

This effort continued apace, and the requisite signatures were obtained. The last person on the mail tree was Northwest flight attendant Pat Hasimoto. She received the mailing and signed the slate declaration form. She then sent an express courier package to Riffle.

When Riffle received the package, he opened it, found the executed nomination acceptances, but found no slate declaration form. He called Hasimoto and told her this. She said that she had signed the slate declaration form, and said that she thought she had put it in the courier package. She told Riffle that perhaps she mislaid it when she put the package together. She sent her husband to the location where the package had been dispatched, but he could not find it. This was relayed to Riffle.

Riffle realized that the slate declaration form was lost. He was unaware that he could have obtained all the signatures on one document through a combination of original and faxed signatures. He therefore implemented a plan to obtain signatures on a second slate declaration form.

First, Riffle obtained signatures on the slate declaration form of all BC slate candidates located in Minneapolis.

Next, Riffle, in consultation with other slate members, agreed that the other slate members would rendezvous at Detroit Metro airport (a Northwest hub) to sign the new slate declaration form. This occurred, and with one exception, all the slate members who had not yet signed the new form met in Detroit and signed.

The one exception was Reller. She could not get to Detroit because of a work conflict. As a result, Reller telephoned BC slate candidates Sandvik and Kathy Jo Smith and authorized either of them to sign her name in the appropriate place on the slate declaration form. Smith did so, in the presence of Sandvik.

The BC slate declaration form was thereafter timely submitted. This protest followed.

4. The purpose of the Rules is to ensure "fair, honest, open and informed elections." Rules, Article I. The purpose of the slate declaration form is to ensure that there is indeed "mutual consent between and among all candidates running on a slate" to their doing so. Article VIII, Section 1(b) of the Rules provides that "[s]uch mutual consent shall be evidenced by the signing of a declaration by all members of the slate, giving the position that each candidate seeks and the name, if any, of the slate to be formed."

Here, there is sufficient evidence of the requisite mutual intent to form the BC slate. This is manifest from the efforts undertaken by the slate members to ensure their slate status after the disappearance of the first (and properly completed) slate declaration form.

The only question, therefore, is whether under the decision in Shanahan, P397 (February 6, 1996), Reller's authorization given to another slate member to sign her name is invalid and renders that signature void. We find that it does not.

In Shanahan, the Election Officer found that a candidate on a slate signed the name of an independent candidate on a slate declaration form without the independent candidate having consented to be part of the slate. The Election Officer noted that then Article IX, Section 1(b) of the Election Rules requires mutual consent for slate formation, and found it lacking, noting the requirement that "mutual consent shall be evidenced by the signing of a declaration by all members of the slate…" In granting the protest before her, the Election Officer held:

First, the Election Officer credits the statement of Mr. Shanahan that he never gave Mr. Baker his consent to be a member of the slate. Second, even if he had, Mr. Baker admits that he forged Mr. Shanahan's name onto the form. The Rules require that all members sign the slate declaration and that there be mutual consent.

Id., p. 3 (emphasis supplied).

Contrary to McNeely's counsel, we read the above from Shanahan as referring to the absence of Shanahan's consent to be a slate member, not his lack of authorization to another to sign his name in the presence of the requisite mutual consent. Here, there is no doubt that Reller consented and consents to membership on the BC slate. That is the basic requirement established by Article VIII, Section 1(b). By comparison, the text of the rule makes clear that the office of the signature requirement is to "evidence" such mutual consent.

In the unique circumstances of this case, we believe that the signature requirement has been met. Reller authorized Smith to sign her name, and agreed to adopt Smith's rendition of her signature as her own. This is not the "forgery" found in Shanahan. Here, where the evidence is overwhelming that Reller intended to join the BC slate, and where the evidence is also undisputed that each BC slate member (including Reller) signed and thus completed the original and now missing BC slate declaration, we hold that the BC slate has properly declared its status as a slate and should stand for election as such on the Local 2000 delegate election ballot.

Accordingly, the protest is DENIED in its entirety.

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 15^th Street NW, Tenth 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 254

DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA FACSIMILE AND UPS NEXT DAY AIR:

Patrick Szymanski

IBT General Counsel

25 Louisiana Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20001

Fax: 202.624.6884

 

Bradley T. Raymond

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,

Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway

Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

Fax: 248.855.6501

 

J. Douglas Korney

Korney & Heldt

30700 Telegraph Road

Suite 1551

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

Fax: 248.646.1054

 

Barbara Harvey

Penobscot Building

Suite 1800

645 Griswold

Detroit, MI 48226

Fax: 313.963.3572

 

Betty Grdina

Yablonski, Both & Edelman

Suite 800

1140 Connecticut Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20036

Fax: 202.463.6688

 

Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach

110 Mayfair

Eugene, OR 97404

Fax: 541.607.4484

 

IBT Local 2000

2850 Metro Drive

Suite 225

Bloomington, MN 55425

Fax: 612.854.3165

 

Barbara Quindel

823 North Cass Street

Milwaukee, WI 53202

Fax: 414.272.7450

 

Ashley McNeely

P.O. Box 23224

Honolulu, HI 96823

Fax: 808.596.8424

 

Dennis Sarsany

1829 Eddy Street

Chicago, IL 60657

Fax: 773.883.0823