Protest Decisions

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2021 ESD 140 (“ESD 140”), which addresses a pre-election protest filed by Cheryl Theurer, was issued on September 9, 2021 (OES Case No. P-165-073021-MW) by the Election Supervisor.  The protest alleged that Jim Glimco, Principal Officer for Local Union 777, barred members from wearing campaign t-shirts at a membership meeting in violation of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).    

On September 9th, the Election Supervisor granted the protest and found that Mr. Glimco interfered with Ms. Theurer’s rights to participate in campaign activity in violation of the Rules.   On September 10, 2021, Mr. Glimco appealed the decision.  On September 12, 2021, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a telephonic hearing for September 15, 2021.  On September 14, 2021, the Office of Election Supervisor and Mr. Glimco submitted supplemental arguments in support of their respective positions.            

A telephonic hearing was held on September 15, 2021.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., on behalf of the Office of the Election Supervisor; and Jim Glimco on behalf of himself.  Following the hearing, the Election Supervisor and Mr. Glimco each submitted additional information to the Election Appeals Master regarding the appeal.

Background

            On the morning of July 29, 2021, Local Union 777 held a contract ratification meeting for members employed at First Student Belvidere, a school bus transportation company.  The meeting and vote was scheduled to commence at 9 a.m. at an American Legion Hall.  Jim Glimco, the local’s principal officer, arrived before the meeting and parked in the lot outside the Hall. 

Cheryl Theurer, the Protestor and a member of Local 777, also arrived at the Hall before the meeting. While still in the lot, Ms. Theurer wore a political t-shirt supporting the O’Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate.  Mr. Glimco saw Ms. Theurer’s political shirt and told her that she was not permitted to wear it during the meeting.  After Ms. Theurer questioned Mr. Glimco about his comment, he repeated that she was not permitted to wear the shirt and that she would have to change.  Ms. Theurer complied with Mr. Glimco’s instructions and did not wear the shirt into the meeting. 

Following an investigation into the encounter, the Election Supervisor concluded that Mr. Glimco interfered with Ms. Theurer’s rights under the Rules.

Mr. Glimco’s Appeal

Mr. Glimco argues that the Election Supervisor’s determination should be reversed because it reached the wrong factual conclusions.  Both in his appeal and during the investigation by the Election Supervisor, Mr. Glimco denied encountering Ms. Theurer in the parking lot and claims that he never told her – or anyone else – to remove a political t-shirt. 

Decision of the Election Appeals Master

            Two versions of the events are before me.  As I have previously found, it is well settled that factual findings and credibility determinations of the Election Supervisor will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.  See Johnson, 2021 EAM 15 (March 22, 2021), citing Hailstone & Martinez, 10 EAM 7 (September 14, 2010).  While this is a high standard, determinations must be based on objective fact or observation and should be, at least briefly, justified.  See Johnson, citing Richards, 00 EAM 4 (August 29, 2000).  Based on the investigation by the Election Supervisor and the justifications for the credibility determinations described in ESD 140, I credit the findings and affirm the decision.

            The Election Supervisor conducted a thorough review of the matter and interviewed Mr. Glimco, Ms. Theuerer and other witnesses who attended the ratification meeting.[1]  After assessing the evidence, the Election Supervisor credited Ms. Theurer.  To support this conclusion, the Election Supervisor determined that Mr. Glimco and Ms. Theurer were both in the parking lot before the meeting occurred.  The Election Supervisor also relied upon a witness statement from a rank and file member who observed the encounter and heard Mr. Glimco tell Ms. Theurer to remove her political shirt. 

The Election Supervisor also interviewed Mr. Glimco’s witnesses.  One witness, by her own admission, was not in a position to observe the exchange.  Another, however, told investigators that he observed a woman wearing a political shirt in the parking lot before the meeting, but that she had subsequently removed it – further corroborating the allegations in the protest.    

Based on the Election Supervisor’s findings and conclusions contained in ESD 140, it was established that Ms. Theurer’s rights to support the candidate of her choice were violated.  See Article VII, Section 12(a) of the Rules.  Accordingly, the Election Supervisor’s decision is affirmed in all respects.   

SO ORDERED,

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         September, 24 2021



DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):