IN RE: MIKE McGOWAN, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2006 ESD 161
Issued: March 28, 2006
OES Case Nos. P-06-223-031806-SO
Mike McGowan, member and candidate for delegate of Local Union 667, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2005-2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protest alleged that two local union employees had full access to the ballots without observers present.
Election Supervisor representative Dolores C. Hall investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact
On March 13, 2006, the protestor went to the mail house and saw that Deborah Cleveland and DeAnna Mooneyham, both employed as clericals by Local Union 667, had full access to the ballots without observers present. The protestor claimed that these two employees were political supporters of the incumbent slate. Further, the protestor alleged that his slate was not told the ballots would be delivered to the mail house "a day early" and that he was denied the right to have an observer present.
Our investigation found that Cleveland and Mooneyham were performing their duties under the direction of Thomas Brown of TLB Solutions, who was engaged by Local Union 667 to conduct the delegate election. Brown provided the two with a checklist of tasks to be performed, with instructions to initial each one as the step was completed. The checklist items included witnessing the ballot printing, checking the finished product, checking labels, checking the accuracy of Post Office boxes, and the like. Cleveland and Mooneyham had assisted with election-related activity in the past at Local Union 667 under the direction of Brown. While Brown used the services of the two they remained on the payroll of Local Union 667 and received no compensation from TLB Solutions. The local union election plan provides that the ballots were to be mailed on March 14; therefore, insertions, if necessary, had to be performed on March 13.
Each of the three candidates was offered the opportunity to have an observer present at the printing and mailing phases of the election process. All three candidates, including the protestor, completed forms indicating that they did not wish to have an observer present to observe the printing and mailing of ballots.
According to Brown, the printer certified the number of ballots printed and the mailer certified the number of ballot packets mailed and the number reserved for sending out as duplicates, if necessary. All of the ballots are accounted for.
Analysis
Article IX, Section 1(a) of the Rules provides that "each candidate for the position of Convention delegate or alternate delegate and each slate of candidates for such position(s) shall have the right, at his/her/its expense, to have at least one (1) observer present at each and every phase of the process for nominating candidates for such position. Each candidate nominated for such position and each slate of candidates nominated for such position(s) shall have the right, at his/her/its expense, to have at least one (1) observer present at each and every phase of the election process."
The protestor formally waived his right to observe the printing and mailing of the ballots and will not be heard now to claim that his observer rights at these phases have been violated. Indeed, no protest has been lodged to question the integrity of the measures for ballot security or the certifications regarding the number of ballots printed and mailed.
The fact that Mooneyham and Cleveland are on the Local Union 667 payroll in and of itself does not establish a bias toward the incumbent slate. Brown required the two to execute a checklist to insure the accuracy of each phase of the election process. In addition, the printer and mailer certified the number of ballots printed, mailed, and retained for use in subsequent mailings in response to members' requests. Consequently, we find that no violation of the Rules.
Accordingly, we DENY this protest.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal and shall be served upon:
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, New York 10022
Fax: (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 1400, Washington, D.C. 20007-5135, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2006 ESD 161
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2198
braymond@teamster.org
Sarah Riger, Staff Attorney
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2198
sriger@teamster.org
David J. Hoffa, Esq.
Hoffa 2006
30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 324
Farmington Hills, MI 48834
David@hoffapllc.com
Barbara Harvey
645 Griswold Street
Suite 3060
Detroit, MI 48226
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210
ken@tdu.org
Daniel Clifton
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
275 Seventh Avenue, #2300
New York, NY 10001
dclifton@lcnlaw.com
Stephen Ostrach
1863 Pioneer Parkway East, #217
Springfield, OR 97477-3907
saostrach@gmail.com
Mike McGowan
Teamsters Local 667
7254 Black Oak Drive
Walls, MS 38680
IBT Local Union 667
796 East Brooks Avenue
Memphis, TN 38116
Dolores C. Hall
1000 Belmont Place
Metairie, LA 70001
hall1000@cox.net
Jeffrey Ellison
510 Highland Avenue, #325
Milford, MI 48381
EllisonEsq@aol.com