ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF DARWIN MOORE, Protestor.
11 Elec. App. 23 (KC)
ORDER
This matter is an appeal from the Election Supervisor's decision 2011 EAD 129 issued February 21, 2011. The appeal was submitted by Scott D. Soldon, Esq. on behalf of Teamsters Local 243 and James Cianciolo, a member and President of Local Union 243.
A hearing was held before me on March 1, 2011. The following persons were heard by way of teleconference: Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., for the Election Supervisor; Barbara Harvey, Esq. on behalf of Darwin Moore and Scott D. Soldon, Esq, on behalf of Teamsters Local Union 243, Greg Lowran, Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 243 and James Cianciolo.
Darwin Moore of Local 243 has been ruled eligible by the Election Supervisor for nomination for delegate. It is undisputed that he has been unemployed at the craft for more than six consecutive months during the relevant qualification period. Local 243 accordingly placed Moore on withdrawal. Moore had been discharged by his employer UPS during this period, which became the subject of a grievance filed by him. After denial of his grievance, he filed a federal lawsuit against UPS and Local 243, asserting that he had been fired by UPS without just cause, and that and Local 243 breached its duty to fairly represent him in the grievance proceedings.
It is further indisputable that Article VI, Section 2 of the Election Rules explicitly excludes as an eligibility disability, failure to work at the craft where a member was in "active pursuit of legal action challenging his discharge." Id.
The central appeals argument made here by Local 243 insists that under the IBT Constitution a withdrawal ordered by a Local Union can be reversed only through internal union appeal. The Local insists that Moore pursued this avenue and was unsuccessful, and specifically notes that he did not exhaust his rights under the IBT Constitution. The Election Supervisor counters with the observation, and indeed the formal finding was explicitly made below, that the pending litigation eligibility exclusion relevant here is not available to a member under the IBT Constitution, but only under the Election Rules.
Of course, the Election Rules, as sanctioned and promulgated under the Consent Decree, are the principle source for candidate eligibility in IBT elections. But there is in fact no conflict between the Constitution and the Rules in this case. Whether the withdrawal card was properly issued in this case is an interesting procedural question, but not critically germane to the merits of Moore's claim, now before a United States Court, that his Local and his employer colluded to bring about, justify and sustain his discharge from his job.
Furthermore, as found by the Election Supervisor, whether Moore worked outside the craft during the relevant period, is irrelevant under the plain meaning of the controlling Rule.
The comprehensive and analytically sophisticated review of both the IBT Constitution and relevant federal law submitted on behalf of Darwin Moore is broadly convincing.
Accordingly, the decision of the Election Supervisor is in all respects affirmed.
SO ORDERED:
_/s/_______________________
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Dated: March 2, 2011