Protest Decisions

         Thomas E. Ohlson, member of Local Union 120, filed a post-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 3 of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).   The protest alleged that Brad Slawson, Sr., retaliated against him for activity protected by the Rules. 

            Election Supervisor representative Joe Childers investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            In January 2011, Ohlson was elected one of seventeen delegates from Local Union 120 to the IBT convention on a slate headed by Brad Slawson, Sr.  Slawson is principal officer of Local Union 120 and IBT central region vice president.  He is also a candidate for IBT central region vice president on the Gegare slate.  The slate of Local Union 120 delegates and alternate delegates headed by Slawson was unopposed at nominations and therefore declared elected.  Ohlson had previously been elected as a convention delegate.  He was the 8^th ranked delegate from Local Union 120 to the 27^th International Convention (2006), and was the 7^th ranked delegate from Local Union 120 to the 26^th International Convention (2001). 

            In March 2011, after the Slawson delegate slate was elected, Local Union 120’s complement of delegates was reduced from seventeen to fifteen as a result of a delegate strength recalculation.  Ohlson was the 16^th ranked delegate.  By rule, Ohlson and the 17^th ranked delegate were demoted from their delegate seats, and Ohlson became the first-ranked alternate delegate.  Ohlson’s protest stated that he first learned of his demotion upon arriving and registering at the convention in Las Vegas on Sunday, June 26, 2011, the day before the convention began.[1]  The next day, Ohlson learned that delegate Craig Hubner had not traveled to the Las Vegas for the convention.[2]  Hubner’s absence rendered a delegate position vacant which Ohlson, as the ranking alternate delegate, could fill.  We issued delegate credentials to Ohlson on Tuesday, June 28.  He served as delegate through the remainder of the convention on Friday, July 1, and voted in the secret ballot elections on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, June 28 through 30 to nominate candidates to the general election ballot. 

            Ohlson filed this protest alleging that Slawson knew Hubner was absent from the convention and deliberately withheld that information from Ohlson in order to leave Hubner’s seat vacant and to deny Ohlson the opportunity to serve as delegate; the protest stated that Slawson’s action constituted retaliation against Ohlson because Ohlson supported the Hoffa-Hall 2011 campaign.

            Protestor Ohlson was employed as a business agent of Local Union 120 from 1996 until he was laid off effective May 5, 2011.  Upon his layoff, Ohlson filed internal union charges against the local union alleging that the layoff violated protections contained in local union bylaws and the IBT constitution.  Those charges remain pending.  Ohlson did not file an election protest or otherwise allege that his layoff was in retaliation for activity protected by the Rules.

            At the time of his January 2011 nomination and election as local union delegate, Ohlson supported the Gegare slate.  He made a campaign contribution to the Gegare slate and gave the check to Slawson.  The check was not cashed.  After he was laid off, Ohlson stopped payment on the check and ceased supporting the Gegare slate.  Thereafter, Ohlson began supporting the Hoffa-Hall 2011 slate.  Ohlson first made a financial contribution to the Hoffa-Hall slate at the June IBT convention.  Ohlson told our investigator he assumed that Slawson knew he was a Hoffa-Hall slate supporter because he wore a red vest[3] at the convention.

            Although he knew that Ohlson was once a Gegare slate supporter, Slawson told our investigator that he did not cash Ohlson’s check because he assumed when Ohlson was laid off and filed his internal union charges challenging the layoff that he would no longer support the Gegare slate, whether financially or otherwise.  

            Ohlson claimed that Slawson knew prior to the convention that Hubner did not intend to travel to Las Vegas.  As proof, Ohlson stated that Slawson wrote him on June 3 asking whether he, as an alternate delegate, intended to attend the convention; Ohlson assumed that Slawson sent a similar letter to delegate Hubner.  As further proof, Ohlson claimed that a meeting of all delegates and alternate delegates from Local Union 120, except himself,[4] was held in Las Vegas on Sunday afternoon, June 26, at which Slawson stated that no action should be taken to seat Ohlson as a delegate because “he won’t vote for us anyway.” 

            Slawson denied that he knew in advance that Hubner would not attend the convention.  Slawson stated that he did not write Hubner asking whether he would attend.  Slawson stated he knew that Hubner, a local union business agent who lived in South Dakota, had resigned his local union position effective July 1 to return to work at UPS; nonetheless, he expected that Hubner would still attend the convention, as he had the right to do.  Slawson said he did not know until the convention that Hubner had not traveled to Las Vegas. 

            Slawson further denied making the statement about not seating Ohlson in Hubner’s vacant position.  Because Ohlson refused to identify the source of his allegation, we reject this allegation for lack of proof. 

            Slawson also stated that he had no phone number for Ohlson while the two were in Las Vegas and, further, that he had no obligation to notify Ohlson of Hubner’s vacant delegate seat. 

We DENY the protest.  Although Ohlson disclaims actual knowledge that the recalculation of delegate strength converted him to an alternate delegate, Ohlson should have known that from the OES postings and because he had not received a credential in advance of the convention.  Having served as a delegate to at least the two preceding conventions, Ohlson should have been fully familiar with the processes and rules for determining delegate strength and issuing credentials. 

Once at the 28^th International Convention, Ohlson could not be seated as a delegate until OES verified both that Hubner was not present and that he did not intend to appear.  Without a signed relinquishment of delegate credentials by Hubner, we were obliged to investigate his non-appearance before filling his position with Ohlson, the ranking alternate delegate.  We completed the investigation promptly, determining that Hubner had not registered as a delegate and did not travel to Las Vegas.  Accordingly, we promoted Ohlson to delegate from alternate delegate on Tuesday, June 28, and he had full opportunity to vote in the elections held Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings for nominations to the union-wide ballot.  The matter of Ohlson’s status at the convention and his ultimate seating as a delegate was a matter of adhering to procedures dictated by the Rules.  We find that Ohlson suffered no adverse action for activity protected by the Rules.

            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, NY  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.