IN RE: STEVE RICHMOND,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 279
Issued: March 29, 2001
OEA Case No. PR0115114NE
Steve Richmond, a member of Local 1149 and a delegate candidate on the Local 1149 Members' Voice slate, 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"). Richmond alleges that Teamsters for a Democratic Union ("TDU"), Local 1149 and Local 1149 A-B Teamsters for Leedham slate (the "AB slate") delegate candidates Robert Hermann and Joseph Zainchowski violated the Rules by the subsidization of Hermann and Zainchowski's attendance at TDU's Cleveland convention on November 3 through 5, 2000. Richmond alleges that these acts constitute an improper monetary contribution to the AB slate candidates.
Election Administrator representative Michael Nicholson investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
Local 1149 has a history of sending members to the TDU annual convention at local union expense. It has done so since 1996 or 1997, during the Carey administration, which supported attendance at the convention. The only exception since that time was the year the convention was held in Milwaukee, a location determined by the local to be too distant.
At Local 1149's September 16, 2000 membership meeting, Zainchowski made a motion that Local 1149 send up to ten members of the local to the November TDU convention, with preference given to stewards and executive board members, at a cost not to exceed $250 per person. Trustee Pat Lyons seconded the motion. Lost time wages were not to be reimbursed, and the motion was amended to provide for membership reimbursement for gasoline costs. Member Greg Grice questioned whether the expense was necessary for the local. Zainchowski and another member claimed that in the past they had received "lots of useful information and education" at the TDU convention. Principal executive officer Halstead is recorded in the minutes of the meeting as saying that "we get value from the education received from the TDU convention and … the local should never shortchange itself in educational expenses." Hermann responded that the prior year six stewards had attended the convention. The motion was carried.
Richmond alleges that at the time Zainchowski made this motion, he and Hermann already had plans to run as IBT Convention delegates in Spring 2001, and that Zainchowski sought and obtained membership approval of the motion in order for both to attend the convention to learn how to be more effective candidates. Richmond is unaware of the specific workshops attended by Zainchowski and Hermann at the convention, but alleges that they attended workshops keyed to delegate candidates. As further evidence of improper motivation for the motion, Richmond notes that Halstead, who supported the motion and the candidacies of Zainchowski and Hermann, had previously opposed spending local union funds on a proposed shop steward training session, claiming it was too expensive. He also notes that Zainchowski had attended no other meetings (other than the TDU convention) since November 1999.
Richmond identified no statements by Zainchowski or Hermann concerning their motivation for the motion, other than the statements made at the September membership meeting. After the September membership meeting, a notice concerning membership attendance at the TDU convention was posted on bulletin boards. Zainchowski and Hermann were the first members to apply for the attendance subsidy pursuant to the motion. Richmond notes that the posting only went up on Anheuser-Busch facility bulletin boards, where Zainchowski and Hermann had support, and was not posted at other Local 1149-represented employers. He notes that Halstead, who posted the notices at Anheuser-Busch, did not ensure their posting at other worksites.
Zainchowski, Hermann and Halstead all claimed that no specific plans regarding delegate candidacies were made prior to the September membership meeting, but state that they were well aware that delegate elections would be held. They each state that the decision of Zainchowski and Hermann to stand as candidates came after the TDU convention.
On January 3, 2001, following the convention and the Election Administrator's decision in Taylor, 2001 EAD 75 (December 29, 2000), aff'd, 01 EAM 16 (February 8, 2001), TDU paid refunds to a number of local unions, including Local 1149, the amount required to be refunded under Taylor, namely 20.5% of the non-meals, programmatic portion of the registration fee per attendee. This totaled $14.13 per member, rather than the $13.11 originally computed, based on an additional $5.00 that TDU determined after our decision should be included in that portion of the fee.[1]
Finally, during our investigation, we determined which breakout meetings at the convention were attended by Zainchowski and Hermann, based on records kept by the attendee group and supplied to the Election Administrator. On the first day of the convention, Zainchowski attended a workshop entitled "Running for IBT Delegate," as well as a session with the Election Administrator held for convention attendees. Hermann also attended the Election Administrator session. On Saturday, Zainchowski attended the "Advanced Stewards and Activists Training" and "Fighting Mid-Contract Change" sessions. On Sunday, Hermann attended the "Beating Production Standards" session.
Analysis
Based on our investigation, we DENY the protest. We find insufficient evidence that Zainchowski's or Hermann's support of the local's subsidization of member attendance at the TDU convention was motivated by a desire to support plans on their part to run as delegate candidates. Moreover, even if we were to assume that was part of their motivation, we reaffirm our finding in Taylor, supra, that legitimate union business was conducted at the TDU 2000 convention that concerned the non-electoral affairs of the union and of union activists. That conclusion supports union funding of convention attendance, so long as steps are taken by TDU, as they have been, to assure that union resources are not used for impermissible campaign purposes. The attendance of Zainchowski and Hermann at the convention, supported in part by union funds, did not violate the Rules.[2]
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, Tenth Floor, Washington, DC 20005 (facsimile: 202-454-1501), all within the time 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 279
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 1149
Attn: Steve Richmond
7272 Van Buren Road
Baldwinsville, NY 13027
Robert Hermann
8180 Honeysuckle Dr.
Liverpool, NY 13090
Joseph Zainchowski
Willow Lane
Elbridge, NY 13060
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
7437 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48210
[1] Richmond's protest alleged that Local 1149 had not received the refund. It was in fact received on January 8, 2001, when Richmond was absent on union business. Richmond, however, points to the $1.02 added to the refund amount as evidence that the refund is now "outside the range of past determinations" of TDU convention political content, at 22.1% rather than 20.5%. In fact, the payment remained at 20.5%, applied to TDU's revised denominator. TDU's decision to increase the amount of its refund is not a Rules violation.
[2] We note that the Local 1149 delegate election was concluded on March 10, 2001. Candidates Zainchowski and Hermann were defeated. Candidate and protestor Richmond and the other candidate on his slate were elected.