Protest Decisions

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2021 ESD 135, which addresses a pre-election protest filed by Frank Halstead, was issued on August 4, 2021 (OES Case No. P-159-071721-FW) by the Election Supervisor.  The protest alleged that Joint Council 7 and Rome Aloise used union resources to support or attack candidates in the International officers’ election in violation of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).

On August 4th, the Election Supervisor granted the protest and found that Joint Council 7 and Rome Aloise used union resources to impermissibly attack the candidacy of the O’Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate (the “OZ Slate”).  On August 6, 2021, the Vairma-Herrera 2021 Teamster Power Slate (the “Teamster Power Slate”) appealed a portion of the Election Supervisor’s remedy that was issued in this matter. 

On August 6, 2021, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a telephonic hearing for August 9, 2021.  On August 9, 2021, the Office of Election Supervisor, Mr. Halstead (the Protestor), the OZ Slate and the Teamster Power Slate each submitted supplemental written arguments in support of their respective positions.            

A telephonic hearing was held on August 9, 2021.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., Deborah Schaaf and Michael Miller on behalf of the Office of the Election Supervisor; Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq., on behalf of the Teamster Power Slate; Edward Gleason, Esq., on behalf of the OZ Slate; and Geoffrey Piller, Esq., on behalf of Joint Council 7.

Due to exigent circumstances, I issued a summary opinion denying the appeal and affirming the Election Supervisor’s decision at the conclusion of the telephonic hearing.  This opinion supplements that order.

Background

            Joint Council 7 is comprised of local unions from Northern California, the Central Valley of California and Northern Nevada.  Many of the local unions within Joint Council 7 are led by union officials who have endorsed the Teamster Power Slate, which is the slate opposing the OZ Slate in the upcoming 2021 International officer’s election.  Joint Council 7’s President is Rome Aloise, who supports the Teamster Power Slate and enjoys political support from many of the union officials who have also endorsed the Teamster Power Slate.

The Joint Council publishes a quarterly newsletter that is mailed to approximately 83,000 members and is also published on Joint Council 7’s website.  The newsletter keeps members apprised of union business and political activities that impact Teamster interests across the region.  The July/August/September 2021 issue of the newsletter contained an article regarding the upcoming International Officers’ election authored by Mr. Aloise entitled “Members Must All Vote in the Upcoming Teamster Election.”  The Election Supervisor determined that the article, which appeared on page 2 and took up approximately half the page, attacked the candidacy of the OZ Slate and endorsed the Teamster Power Slate in violation of the Rules.    

To remedy the violation, the Election Supervisor ordered Joint Council 7 to pay the expense of printing and mailing a two-sided, color campaign flyer for the OZ Slate.[1]  The flyer is to be inserted into the next newsletter issued by the Joint Council and delivered to members that received Mr. Aloise’s article.  The Teamster Power Slate appealed this remedy.   

Decision of the Election Appeals Master

There is no dispute that the content of Mr. Aloise’s article in Joint Council 7’s publication violated the Rules.  See Article VII, Section 8 of the Rules.  (“[n]o publication or communication financed, sponsored or used, directly or indirectly, by a Union…may be used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person.”).  The only issue before me is whether the remedy of having Joint Council 7 print and mail a separate flyer for the OZ Slate is appropriate under the circumstances.  I find that it is. 

It is well settled that the Election Supervisor’s discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy is broad and is entitled to deference, Hailstone & Martinez, 10 EAM 7 (September 14, 2010), and that the Election Supervisor’s remedy for a Rules violation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.  See, e.g., Gegare, 10 EAM 1 (June 14, 2010) (“The remedy selected by the Election Supervisor will not be disturbed except where there has been an abuse of discretion.”).

Here, the Teamster Power Slate claims that having a two-sided colored flyer inserted into the next newsletter far exceeds the harm caused by the election violation.  The Slate argues that Mr. Aloise’s article only took up a portion of a page in the newsletter, was printed in black and white and was not prominently displayed.  As such, a separate color flyer that takes up a full page would draw too much attention to the OZ Slate campaign making the remedy unfair and overbroad.

I find, however, that this remedy meets the goals of ensuring a fair election process.  As President of the Joint Council, Mr. Aloise acted in his official capacity to persuade members to vote for his choice of candidate using a union resource in violation of the Rules.  That message, which I find carries considerable weight, was delivered to over 83,000 members and was also published online.  Under these circumstances, mailing a flyer from the opposing slate is a reasonable remedy that levels the campaign playing field and appropriately addresses the election misconduct.  See Anderson, 2011 ESD 307 (August 5, 2011); see also Halstead, 2010 ESD 8 (July 26, 2010); Collins & Strohl, 2011 ESD 143 (March 2, 2011).

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED,

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         August 12, 2021




DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):