Protest Decisions

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2021 ESD 152 (ESD 152), which addresses a pre-election protest filed by the O’Brien Zuckerman 2021 slate, was issued on October 5, 2021 (OES Case No. P-178-100121-NA) by the Election Supervisor.  The protest alleged that nine local unions, including Local 305, failed to produce worksite lists to the O’Brien-Zuckerman slate in violation of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).

On October 5th, the Election Supervisor resolved the protest pending Local 305’s delivery of the worksite list to the slate by electronic mail.  On October 7, 2021, Local 305 submitted the list, but appealed the protest decision. 

On October 8, 2021, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a telephonic hearing for October 12, 2021.  On October 11, 2021, the Office of Election Supervisor submitted supplemental written argument in support of its position. 
          

A telephonic hearing was held on October 12, 2021.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq. and Deborah Schaaf on behalf of the Office of the Election Supervisor; and Tony L. Andrews, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 305.

Decision of the Election Appeals Master

            Pursuant to Section Article VII, Section 1(b) of the Rues, candidates for International office have the “right to a current list of all sites, with corresponding addresses, where any and all Union members work.”  The Rules also state that “[r]equests for such worksite lists shall be made to the pertinent Local Union's Secretary-Treasurer or principal officer in writing and shall be honored within five (5) days.”  Article VII, Section 1(b). 

            There is no dispute that, on July 2, 2021, the O’Brien-Zuckerman slate properly requested worksite lists from Local 305.  On July 23, 2021, Local 305 delivered the worksite lists to the slate by certified mail, well past the five-day deadline prescribed by the Rules.  The mailing, however, was not claimed by the slate at the Post Office and was apparently not received.  On August 4, 2021, the slate sent a follow-up request to Local 305 seeking the worksite list.

            Local 305 refused to resend the list claiming that it had fulfilled its obligations under the Rules by sending the list to the slate via certified mail in the first place.  Local 305 also took the position that it would not resend the list unless the O’Brien-Zuckerman slate specifically renewed their request for the worksite list.  Based on these facts, the Election Supervisor determined that Local 305 had not met its obligations under the Rules because the slate had not received the list.  Thus, on October 5, 2021, the Election Supervisor ordered Local 305 to resend the list by electronic mail.  See ESD 152.  Once it demonstrated proof that the list was sent, the Election Supervisor would deem the protest against Local 305 “RESOLVED.”  Id.  On October 7th, the slate sent the list by electronic mail. 

            In its appeal, Local 305 contends that the Election Supervisor should have denied the protest altogether instead of issuing a “RESOLVED” decision claiming it did not violate the Rules because it had initially sent the list by certified mail.  While I understand Local 305’s position on this matter, I find no basis for its claim. 

                        The Election Supervisor denies protests when it determines that a violation of the Rules has not occurred.  That is not the case here.  Local 305 mailed the list three weeks after the five-day deadline contained in the Rules.  Additionally, it failed to resend the list after receiving a follow-up request from the O’Brien-Zuckerman slate to do so.  Then, instead of simply complying with the Rules, Local 305 further delayed the process by demanding that the slate renew its request before it would send the list again.  Local 305 eventually emailed the list, but only after it was ordered to do so by the Election Supervisor.  Given these circumstances, the Election Supervisor’s determination to issue a “RESOLVED” decision in this matter was more than appropriate.   

            For the foregoing reasons, Local 305’s the appeal is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED,

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         October 25, 2021





DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):