IN RE: TODD THOMPSON,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 407
Issued: July 16, 2001
OEA Case No. PR071111NE
Todd Thompson, campaign manager for the Hoffa 2001 Unity slate (the "Hoffa campaign"), 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"). Thompson alleges that Jeffrey Cederbaum, secretary-treasurer of Local 1150 who ran unsuccessfully for delegate, violated the Rules by requesting that Local 1150 delegates and alternate delegates who attended the recent IBT Convention provide a written report on their "day to day activities" at the Convention. Thompson alleges that the request is a "blatant attempt to retaliate against . . . members who defeated the Leedham Slate for Local 1150 delegates."
Election Administrator representative Jason Weidenfeld investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
The IBT Convention was held from June 25-29, 2001. Representing Local 1150 were delegates and alternates who support the Hoffa Unity slate. These delegates and alternates defeated a slate, including Cederbaum, that supported the Tom Leedham Rank and File Power slate.
After returning from the IBT Convention, the delegates and alternates received letters dated July 6, 2001 from Cederbaum. The full text reads:
Congratulations and welcome back from your delegation duties at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada. I know that the membership will be interested in your day to day activities on the convention floor, as well as your participation in the debates on many resolutions presented during the five days you attended. Therefore, I am requesting you submit a written report of the convention events you participated in as a representative of the members of Local 1150. I am looking forward to reading your report, and request that it be submitted on or before July 13, 2001.
Thompson reads the Cederbaum letter as a threat to inform the local union's membership if the delegates and alternates do not respond. He alleges that the letter will "chill [the] members' rights" under the Rules. He also perceives the letter as a prohibited addition to the local union plan, which was approved months ago and did not mention a reporting requirement. Further, according to the protest, Cederbaum "seeks to compel delegates to report on protected activities" in which they engaged. Finally, Thompson labels the letter a "blatant attempt to retaliate" against the winning slate and asks that a notice be published requiring Cederbaum to inform members that he will no longer "attempt to intimidate his political opponents."
Cederbaum denies any intent to retaliate against or intimidate the Local 1150 representatives and questions the basis for the protest. He told our investigator that the letter is a request and clearly does not require a response. Cederbaum says that since Local 1150 spent a lot of money sending people to the IBT Convention, it was appropriate to send the letter to have the convention attendees describe what happened at the convention and what they "got out of it." Cederbaum denies that the letter contains any threats, veiled or explicit. Upon receiving responses to his request, Cederbaum claims that he may report them to the membership in a newsletter or at a membership meeting. He also said that he might do nothing with the responses.
Analysis
The Rules do not discuss in detail the roles and responsibilities of a delegate or alternate once elected. Specifically, the Rules do not address whether local union principal officers may request from delegates and alternates information on the proceedings of the IBT Convention. Nevertheless, Article VII, Section 11(f) of the Rules prohibits "retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee" when directed toward the exercise of any election-related right. See Rodriguez, 2001 EAD 277 (March 25, 2001). The existence of a reasonable independent basis for the decision or conduct at issue is a defense to an allegation of improper motivation so long as it is not shown to be a pretext. Ulloa, 2001 EAD 135 (February 6, 2001); Ruscigno, 2001 EAD 105 (January 26, 2001); Pope, 2000 EAD 39 (October 17, 2000); Hoffa, P857 (September 11, 1996), aff'd, 96 EAM 234 (September 19, 1996). A protest claiming retaliation cannot be sustained unless a threat or an actual act of retaliation is established. Giacumbo, P100 (October 13, 1995), aff'd, 95 EAM 27 (October 25, 1995). To demonstrate retaliation, a protester must show that conduct protected by the Rules "was the motivating factor in the resulting action." Halstead, 01 EAM 78 (June 15, 2001).
We find no retaliatory motive or effect in Cederbaum's request. He has asked, not demanded, that local union members report on their activities as representatives of Local 1150 at the IBT Convention. This is a legitimate request that those who attended provide to the members that elected them as their representatives information concerning how the membership was represented at the convention on matters of official union business. Finally, we hold that nothing in Local 1150's delegate election plan or the Rules prohibits Cederbaum from asking for a report on the delegates' and alternates' activities as local union representatives.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the protest.
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 407
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 1150
150 Garfield Ave.
Stratford, CT 06615
Jeff Cederbaum
12 Rocky Green
Seymour, CT 06483
Richard Rollinson
1035 Fernbrook Rd.
Orange, CT 06477
Todd Thompson
Hoffa Unity Slate
209 Pennsylvania Ave. S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
David F. Reilly
Reilly, Oliver & Olsen
22 W. Main St.
North Kingstown, RI 02852