IN RE: CRAIG WOOD, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2011 ESD 210
Issued: April 14, 2011
OES Case No. P-232-032411-FW
Craig Wood, member of Local Union 81 and candidate for delegate, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2 of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protest alleged that campaign literature supporting Wood's opponent in the delegate election was posted on the glass front of two union worksite bulletin boards.
Election Supervisor representative Rochelle Goffe investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact
Local Union 81 has approximately 640 members and is entitled to one delegate and one alternate delegate to the 2011 IBT convention. Two full slates of candidates were nominated for these positions. Protestor Wood was nominated for delegate and ran on a slate with Tony Metson, who was nominated for alternate delegate. Their slate was opposed by the Strickland/Schoen slate, comprised of delegate candidate Tom Strickland, the local union's principal officer, and alternate delegate Mike Schoen, local union president. At the tally of ballots held March 28, 2011, Wood won the delegate seat over Strickland by eight votes, while Schoen bested Metson by four votes.
Elected delegate Wood had previously held union office in 2002-2006 and had later been employed by the local union as a full time business agent from 2006 to 2008. After his tenure as business agent, Wood filed a claim against Local Union 81 for back pay and accrued vacation and holiday benefits. The claim was initially upheld in administrative proceedings, which the union appealed by suit filed in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon. On March 14, 2011, a jury held that the local did not owe Woods the accrued wages he had claimed. The validity of Wood's claim against the local union was raised by the Strickland/Schoen slate as an issue in the campaign for delegate.
Two other protests were filed concerning this election[1]. Those protests were unrelated to the current claim, but investigation of them revealed facts relevant here. Evidence from the parties and other members of Local Union 81 showed that Wood and Strickland are well acquainted, as both had served together as members of the local union's executive board in the past. A Local Union 81 retiree characterized their relationship as antagonistic and referred to a history of verbal clashes at membership meetings in past years. A number of members made reference to Wood's claim against the local union for back vacation pay and benefits. These references suggest that the legal claim was not only a primary source of the contention between Wood and Strickland, but also was the subject of a number of heated discussions among or in the presence of Local Union 81 members at their monthly meetings.
On March 21, 2011, Wood alleged he found two pieces of campaign literature supporting the Strickland/Schoen slate attached to the glass fronts of Local Union 81 bulletin boards at Container Management Services ("CMS") and ABF Freight Systems ("ABF"). Both CMS and ABF are employers of Local Union 81 members. The protestor made no claim and provided no evidence of further distribution of the material outside of the two locations identified in the protest.
Wood provided photographs of the bulletin boards at CMS and ABF, showing the alleged campaign literature on display. The piece attributed by Wood to the Strickland/Schoen campaign consisted of a single sheet, hand-printed as follows[2]:
3-14-11
Today in court a jury has cleared local 81 of all charges and wrongdoing in the lawsuit brought on by Mr. Craig Woods. No money will be payed out to him or his Lawyer. We do not Know at this time if any of our (the locals) money for lawyer fees can be recouped.
THANKS CRAIG!!
The date and main body of the printing on the paper were made with a broad-tip marker; the "THANKS CRAIG!!" at the end of the piece is printed with pen or pencil in a different hand.
The photos the protestor supplied show that the hand-printed piece is taped to the glass front of each bulletin board. One of the photos is a close shot of the alleged campaign piece; the other, taken from a few feet away, includes the entire board and shows that the items inside the glass are notices, announcements and other official union communications.
Strickland denied any knowledge of the authorship or distribution of the writing. Wood did not produce any evidence to support his claim that Strickland was responsible for the posting. Neither the author nor the person responsible for posting (if different) has been identified.
Analysis
Article VII, Section 12(b) of the Rules prohibits use of union assets for campaign purposes. The use of a union bulletin board to post campaign material violates the Rules, absent a pre-existing right to do so.
Wood submits that the flyer at issue here constituted campaign material because it reported on his wage claim, which was an issue in the delegate election. Its posting on a union bulletin board, Wood argues, constituted improper use of a union asset to campaign.
Although this protest was filed pre-election, we consider it in a post-election context pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(f)(2). Under such circumstances, we may remedy any alleged Rules violation[3] only if it may have affected the outcome of the election. As Wood won the delegate election, we find that the alleged violation at issue here did not affect the outcome of the election, and we DENY the protest on that basis.
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, 1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L, Washington, D.C. 20006, 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
2011 ESD 210
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
braymond@teamster.org
David J. Hoffa
Hoffa Hall 2011
1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Ste. 730
Washington, D.C. 20036
hoffadav@hotmail.com
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210-0128
ken@tdu.org
Barbara Harvey
1394 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Fred Gegare
P.O. Box 9663
Green Bay, WI 54308-9663
kirchmanb@yahoo.com
Scott D. Soldon
3541 N. Summit Avenue
Shorewood, WI 53211
scottsoldon@gmail.com
Fred Zuckerman, President
Teamsters Local Union 89
3813 Taylor Blvd.
Louisville, KY 40215
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Robert M. Colone, Esq.
P.O. Box 272
Sellersburg, IN 47172-0272
rmcolone@hotmail.com
Carl Biers
Box 424, 315 Flatbush Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11217
info@SandyPope2011.org
Julian Gonzalez
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
350 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10001-5013
jgonzalez@lcnlaw.com
Craig Wood
3873 SW 9th Court
Gresham, OR 97030-6532
crashawood@yahoo.com
Tom Strickland, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 81
1874 NE 162nd Ave.
Portland, OR 97230
tom@teamsters81.org
Rochelle Goffe
1234 22nd Avenue, E
Seattle, WA 98112
rochellegoffe@gmail.com
Christine Mrak
2357 Hobart Avenue, SW
Seattle, WA 98116
chrismrak@gmail.com
Maria Ho
Office of the Election Supervisor
1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L
Washington, D.C. 20006
mho@ibtvote.org
Kathryn Naylor
Office of the Election Supervisor
1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L
Washington, D.C. 20006
knaylor@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
214 S. Main Street, Ste. 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
EllisonEsq@aol.com
[1] Wood, 2011 ESD 211 (April 14, 2011); Strickland, 2011 ESD 212 (April 14, 2011).
[2] All errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar are as they appeared in the original.
[3] Allegations of improper threats, coercion, intimidation, acts of violence or retaliation may be considered and remedied in a post-election context regardless of effect on the outcome of the election. No such allegation is presented in this case.
