Protest Decisions

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2021 ESD 69, which addresses a pre-election protest filed by John Green and Kevin Baughman, was issued on March 4, 2021 (OES Case No. P-064-012721-NE) by the Election Supervisor.  The protest alleged that Grant Maertz and Anthony Seiler, members of Local 952, campaigned to members who were working in violation of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).    

On March 4th, the Office of Election Supervisor granted the protest and ordered that Mr. Mertz, Mr. Seiler, and others involved in their slate cease and desist from campaigning to members who are on employer-paid time.  On March 6, 2021, Patrick Kelly, an independent delegate candidate in Local 952’s election, appealed the decision and requested a stay of the remedy.  On March 8, 2021, the Election Appeals Master denied the stay.  See Green & Baughman, 2021 EAM 11 (March 8, 2021). 

On March 8th, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a telephonic hearing for March 11, 2021.  On March 10, 2021, the Office of Election Supervisor submitted supplemental written argument in support of its position.            

A telephonic hearing was held on March 11, 2021.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., and Michael Miller on behalf of the Office of the Election Supervisor; and Patrick Kelly on his own behalf as an independent delegate candidate.

           Decision of the Election Appeals Master

            Grant Maertz and Anthony Seiler are members of Local 952 and are affiliated with the Solidarity slate.  On February 16, 2021, they campaigned on behalf of their slate at the entrance of various employer truck yards.  The Election Supervisor’s investigation determined that Maertz and Seiler were stopping and distributing campaign handbills to members driving trucks while the drivers were on employer-paid time.  Based on the investigation, the Election Supervisor concluded that Maertz and Seiler violated the Rules because they were campaigning to members who were working.  See Youngermann, P-742 (May 2, 1996); see also Article VII, Section 12(d).

As an independent candidate actively engaged in a political campaign, Mr. Kelly finds the Election Supervisor’s decision overbroad.  Even though he did not participate in the activity in this matter, he asserts that the decision violates his rights to campaign at work sites and other employer facilities, such as parking lots and gates.  That is not the case.  The Election Supervisor’s decision in this matter does not prohibit members from campaigning at these locations.

However, campaign activity must still comply with the Rules.  Campaigning to members who are actively working on company time is prohibited and is a clear violation.  See Hoffa-Hall 2016, 2015 ESD 6 (July 7, 2015); Berg & Corrigan, 2001 EAD 267, (March 26, 2001), aff’d, 01 EAM 61 (April 23, 2001). 

Accordingly, the Election Supervisor’s decision in 2021 ESD 69 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED,

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         March 15, 2021




DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):