ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
IN RE:
MIKE WEBB, Protestor.
06 Elec. App. 027 (KC)
ORDER
This matter is an appeal from the Election Supervisor's decision 2006 ESD 155 issued March 24, 2006.
A hearing was held before me on April 3, 2006. The following persons were heard by way of teleconference: Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., Steven Newmark and J Griffin Morgan on behalf of the Election Supervisor, Robert Baptiste, Esq. on behalf of Teamsters Local 391, Barbara Harvey, Esq. on behalf of the TDU, Tommy Burke a retiree of Local 391 and Mike Webb the protestor.
The original decision by the Election Supervisor in this matter in which Mr. Webb's protest was denied, was issued on March 7, 2006. Mr. Webb appealed, and a hearing was conducted on March 14, 2006 following which the matter was remanded to the Election Supervisor for further investigation.
The Election Supervisor's supplemental decision, dated March 24, 2006 revealed an extensive, balanced and entirely persuasive investigation and analysis. Familiarity with both decisions is assumed.
Focusing on the conversation between Local Union 391 staff member Randy Conrad and Local Union 391 retiree Tommy Burke during the Local's January 14, 2006 nomination meeting, the Election Supervisor carefully reviewed and evaluated the testimony of eleven witnesses. No fair-minded person can doubt the conclusion of the Election Supervisor that Conrad's statements and/or conduct did not cause or contribute to inadvertent confusion in connection with the nomination of candidates on the Members First Slate. More importantly, although there is no evidence that Conrad did substantial and irremedial injury to the integrity of the protest proceedings by refusing to cooperate with the Election Supervisor's investigation, it is conclusively established that he violated Article XIII, Section 2(g) of the Election Rules in the manner in which he gave evidence. I have the authority to require Conrad to sit for a sworn examination and in the event of adherence to his stated position, refer the matter to the United States Attorney for review under the perjury statute.
I will however, defer to the discretion of the Election Supervisor, and affirm the less severe penalty that he has imposed. I take this opportunity to remind all those involved in the IBT election process that impeding, or giving false evidence to, the Election Supervisor and his Office is an affront to the IBT, offends the Consent Decree interests of the rank and file membership, implicates the supervisory powers of the United States Courts, and will not be tolerated.
The decision is in all respects affirmed.
SO ORDERED:
/s/ ____________________
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Dated: April 4, 2006