ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
--------------------------------------------------------X
IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF THOMAS
COFFEY, LOCAL UNION 710 2015-2016 EAM 7 (KAR) DECISION RE 2016 ESD 71
---------------------------------------------------------X
Protest Decision 2016 ESD 71 (ESD 71), regarding the eligibility of Thomas Coffey, a delegate candidate in Local Union 710, was issued on January 16, 2016 (OES Case No. E-094-011216-MW. James Hamilton, a member of Local Union 710, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”), alleging that Thomas Coffey is ineligible for nomination as a delegate to the IBT convention.
The Election Supervisor denied the protest.
On January 20, 2016, an appeal was filed by IBT Local 710, asserting that the decision of the Election Supervisor “erroneous” because Mr. Coffey “did not maintain twenty-four (24) consecutive months of employment at a craft within the jurisdiction of Local 710 prior to the month of nomination as required by Articles III §5(c) and II §4(a)(1) of the IBT Constitution.”
By Notice of Hearing sent to all distributees of ESD 71, a telephonic hearing was scheduled for January 27, 2016. On January 25, 2016, the Election Supervisor submitted a written response to the appeal (OES January 25 Letter).
A telephonic hearing was held on January 27, 2016. The following individuals attended the hearing: Nancy B.G. Lassen, Esq., on behalf of Local 710, Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., on behalf of the Election Supervisor (OES), along with several other OES representatives as observers, David J. Hoffa, Esq., on behalf of the Hoffa-Hall Campaign, and Thomas Coffey.
For the reasons set forth below, the appeal of ESD 71 by Local 710 is DENIED, and the decision of the Election Supervisor is AFFIRMED.
Findings of Fact
The following facts were developed in an investigation by the Election Supervisor conducted in response to a Protest filed by Mr. Hamilton on January 12, 2016, which asserted that “Tom was nominated for a delegate and is not working in the industry and has been off work for 12 months and was not being paid. Therefore he does not have 24 consecutive dues paying months. He should not be eligible.
The Election Supervisor noted that Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Rules provides that “to be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate or International Officer position, one must: (1) be a member in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one’s dues paid to the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments; (2) be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination; and (3) be eligible to hold office if elected.”
The Election Supervisor found that the nominations meeting for Local Union 710’s delegates and alternate delegates election was held January 10, 2016. Therefore, the 24-month period during which candidates must be in continuous good standing in order to be eligible for nomination ran from January 2014 through December 2015.
To verify Coffey’s eligibility during this period, the Election Supervisor reviewed TITAN records for dues remitted on his behalf. The Election Supervisor determined that Mr. Coffey was employed by the local union as an elected business agent until the local union was placed in trusteeship in January 2015. During the portion of the eligibility period through the month the trusteeship was imposed, Mr. Coffey was on dues check-off, and his dues were timely deducted and remitted on his behalf. Following imposition of the trusteeship, the appointed trustee removed all elected officers of the local union. In addition, the trustee removed all elected and appointed business agents, Mr. Coffey included. From the time of his removal and continuing to present, Mr. Coffey made timely payment of full cash dues to the local union, and the local union accepted the dues and credited Mr. Coffey’s dues payment record. Accordingly, the Election Supervisor found that Mr. Coffey has maintained continuous good standing with respect to payment of dues for the entire eligibility period.
The Election Supervisor construed Protest also to challenge Mr. Coffey’s eligibility with respect to the second eligibility criterion, employment at the craft under the local union’s jurisdiction. The Election Supervisor found that during the thirteen months of the eligibility period when Mr. Coffey was employed on a full-time basis by the local union, he qualified as working at the craft pursuant to Article VI, Section 2(h) of the Rules, which declares that full-time employees of local unions meet this criterion by virtue of their employment by the union.
The Election Supervisor found that upon his removal from his union position by the appointed trustee, Mr. Coffey filed an appeal under the IBT constitution, challenging the right of the trustee to remove him. Mr. Coffey acknowledged that the trustee had express constitutional authority to remove elected officers of the local union as well as at-will employees, but argued that the trustee did not have the authority under the IBT Constitution to remove elected business agents such as Mr. Coffey. Mr. Coffey appealed first to the General President, then to the General Executive Board, both of which rejected his appeal. Mr. Coffey has filed an appeal to the IBT convention, which is the last resort available to him under the IBT Constitution.
The Election Supervisor further found that Mr. Coffey retains recall rights with his former employer, who still operates under the jurisdiction of the local union, and that the employer has offered to return him to work in the event his appeal to the convention is unsuccessful.
Determination of the Election Supervisor
Article VI, Section 2(b) of the Rules declares that “the active employment at the craft requirement may be excused * * * by active pursuit of * * * legal action challenging suspension or discharge.” The Election Supervisor determined that Mr. Coffey’s appeals under the IBT constitution are “legal action” within the meaning of this provision, because exhaustion of constitutional remedies is a prerequisite to any civil litigation that Mr. Coffey might pursue. Accordingly, the Election Supervisor found that Mr. Coffey’s period of unemployment following the trustee’s removal of him from his elected business agent position does not render him ineligible for delegate under the Rules. See Eligibility of Moore, 2011 ESD 129 (February 21, 2011), aff’d, 11 EAM 23 (March 2, 2011). The Election Supervisor further determined that Mr. Coffey retains recall rights with his former employer, who still operates under the jurisdiction of the local union, and that his former employer has offered to return him to work should his appeal to the convention be unsuccessful. The Election Supervisor found that a member satisfies the working at the craft eligibility requirement if he is on a recall list with an employer under the local union’s jurisdiction. See Eligibility of McPartlin, 2011 ESD 79 (January 24, 2011), aff’d, 11 EAM 17 (February 11, 2011).
Appeal by the Local 710
The essence of the appeal by Local 710 is that Article VI, Section 2(b) of the Rules was intended to apply to “discharge” by an employer, and that Mr. Coffey was not “discharged” by an employer, but “removed” by the Trustee. Local 710 asserts that, as a matter of policy, it would be contrary to the purpose of a trusteeship to permit a union employee removed by a trustee to remain eligible to seek election as a Convention delegate.
Decision of the Election Appeals Master
I note at the outset that the plain (dictionary) meaning of “discharge” includes “removal.” See https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=definition+of+discharge. Nor has Local 710 pointed to any provision of the Rules that expresses or reflects an intent to limit the term “discharge” to discharge by an employer. The authors of the Rules were certainly aware of the possibility that potential candidates might be terminated from their union employment in the context of a trusteeship, and were free, for the policy reasons suggested by Local 710, to limit the exception of Article VI, Section 2(b) to discharge by an employer. They chose not to do so. In the absence of a clear expression of intent to limit the exception as proposed by Local 710, I find that the Election Supervisor correctly interpreted to exception to apply to removal from office by a trustee.
For the reasons set forth above and for substantially the reasons set forth in ESD 71 and the OES January 25 Letter, the appeal by Local 710 is DENIED, and the decision of the Election Supervisor is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/___________________________________
KATHLEEN A. ROBERTS
ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
DATED: FEBRUARY 2, 2016