Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

 

IN RE: DAN GRONE,                           )                Protest Decision 2015 ESD 60

                                                                  )                 Issued: December 17, 2015

            Protestor.                                     )                 OES Case No. P-041-090115-ME     

_________________________________)

 

            Dan Grone, member and delegate candidate of Local Union 100, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that Local Union 100’s newsletter violated the Rules because it constitutes union-funded campaign material.

 

            Election Supervisor representative Lia Lockert investigated this protest.

 

Findings of Fact and Analysis

 

            Nominations for Local Union 100’s delegates and alternate delegates election will take place February 4, 2016; the local union’s election plan sets March 8 as the date for mailing out ballots to members and schedules the ballot count for counted April 5, 2016.

 

            This protest alleged that the official Local Union 100 newsletter published August 24, 2015 violated Article VII, Section 8 of the Rules, which prohibits union-funded publications from supporting or attacking “any candidate or the candidacy of any person.”

 

            Recent history shows that the local union publishes a newsletter twice annually, generally in January and July.  Dave Hibbard edited the protested issue that was published August 24.  Previously, Sam Bucalo, business agent and secretary-treasurer, edited several issues of the newsletter.  On May 27, 2015, the local union executive board voted to replace Bucalo as editor with Hibbard.

 

            On July 1, 2015, Bucalo published and distributed to the local union membership at personal expense a 16-page personal newsletter that he titled Teamster News.  Bucalo’s newsletter indicated that it was not the official publication of Local Union 100 but instead was campaign material in support of Bucalo’s candidacy for re-election as local union secretary-treasurer in 2016.  Bucalo’s newsletter included an article stating his personal endorsement of Teamsters United, a slate of candidates for International office.  It also contained negative and derogatory information about other members of the local union executive board and local union business agents, alleging misconduct in office on their part and attacking them for internal union charges they had brought against Bucalo. 

 

Bucalo’s personal newsletter drew two protests, one filed by Hoffa-Hall 2016 and the other by Local Union 100 member and former officer Jimmy Meyer; both protests alleged that the newsletter so closely resembled the official newsletter of the local union as to constitute an impermissible union endorsement of Teamsters United.  We denied the protest, concluding that the disclaimers in Bucalo’s newsletter demonstrated that it was campaign material in support of Bucalo’s candidacy for local union office and not a Local Union 100 endorsement of Teamsters United.  Hoffa-Hall 2016 and Meyer, 2015 ESD 28 (August 28, 2015).  In addition, six of the seven executive board members of the local union brought internal union charges against Bucalo over the personal newsletter.  These were presented to Joint Council 26, which dismissed two of the six charges and substantially limited the scope of the remaining charges.  Trial on these charges was initially scheduled for October 22, 2015.  We denied without prejudice Bucalo’s protest alleging that the charges were impermissible retaliation for his Rules-protected activity in publishing the newsletter.  Bucalo, 2015 ESD 43 (October 19, 2015), aff’d,  15 EAM 3 (November 16, 2015). 

 

            Protestor Grone is a candidate for delegate in Local Union 100.  He contended that the official local union newsletter published August 24, 2015 contained neither significant nor newsworthy material and was instead a puff piece promoting the union officials who will stand for delegate or alternate delegate election against him.  As such, Grone argued that the newsletter was union-funded campaign material that violated the Rules. 

 

            Article VII, Section 8(a) of the Rules prohibits use of union-financed publications or communications “to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person.”  The “tone, timing and content” test is used to determine whether such publications engage in impermissible campaigning.  Martin, P10 (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 18 (October 2, 1995); Jacob, P71 (September 7, 1995), aff'd, 95 EAM 19 (October 3, 1995); Ruscigno, P67 (July 19, 1995); Lewis, 2001 EAD 357 (May 9, 2001).  The Election Supervisor must also review “the specific context in which the communication takes place.”  Jacob, supra.

Election Appeals Master Conboy explained in Martin, 95 EAM 18 (October 2, 1995), that an incumbent has “a right and responsibility,” as a union officer, to “advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern” to the membership, and is “entitled to use union publications to express [his] views.” [Citations omitted] “A union publication may report on the regular functions, policies, and activities of an incumbent officer, but may not provide coverage that supports the incumbent’s candidacy for union office.”  In general terms, “newsworthy articles or articles which contain purely factual information are generally permissible.”  However, “the publication of too many articles regarding a candidate for union office, however newsworthy, may indicate that union officials have [impermissibly] used the publication as a tool of the candidate’s campaign.”  Further, a union president’s messages that tout his accomplishments as union president can be impermissibly “promotional” in advance of a union election. 

In applying these principles to the Teamsters Local 100 Newsletter, published in August 2015, we find that one article violated the Rules while the balance of the newsletter did not. 

The third paragraph of the Report of the President, by local union president Dave Webster, stated the following:

[D]espite what may be available to read in certain “campaign” literature, I must say that I have been so impressed with the integrity and accomplishments of those working for Local 100.  As President, I want you to know that I was shocked by the publication’s contents when I first saw it.  Under no circumstances do I support or endorse the negative contents of that publication and it shouldn’t be construed as an official endorsement by myself or Teamsters Local 100.  The Officers and Agents who were attacked by the so-called “Teamsters News” have my full support and appreciation for their hard work, integrity and dedication.

 

This paragraph did not involve purely factual reporting that was politically neutral.  Instead, it expressed Webster’s opinions about and responses to campaign literature the local union membership received from Bucalo.  Webster’s opinions – “I have been so impressed with the integrity and accomplishments…”; “I was shocked…”; “I [do not] endorse the negative contents of that publication…”; persons “who were attacked … have my full support and appreciation…” – responded directly to Bucalo’s campaign literature.  While Webster had the right as a member and candidate to express his views about Bucalo’s campaign claims, Webster could not permissibly use the union-funded newsletter to communicate those views.  Accordingly, we find that this paragraph violated the Rules.

 

            In reaching this conclusion, we find Webster’s conduct similar to that in Hill, 2011 ESD 136 (February 24, 2011), appeal withdrawn, 11 EAM 25 (March 9, 2011) and distinguishable from that in Hoffa-Hall 2011, 2011 ESD 314 (August 28, 2011).  In Hill, the local union’s president responded to campaign literature with a union-funded letter on local union letterhead that portrayed the incumbent local union administration favorably and refuted the allegations made in campaign literature.  We held that the local union president’s response violated the Rules not because it took a partisan tone, which the president as a member and candidate had the right to do, but because it was printed and mailed at local union expense.  Also, distribution of the letter was timed to reach members’ homes at or near the same time as ballots in the delegates and alternate delegates election. 

 

            In this case, unlike Hill, timing is not a factor because the newsletter was distributed months before delegate nominations and the scheduled balloting.  Nonetheless, the content of Webster’s opinions here – a direct response to campaign literature, featured in the local union president’s official message to the membership – constituted campaigning.  Presentation of this partisan campaign message as an official communication from the local union president is the basis for finding the communication violates the Rules.

 

            Webster’s opinions contrasted with the purely factual response the local union made in Hoffa-Hall 2011.  There, the local union sent a letter four months after the delegate and alternate delegate election, reciting the facts concerning a union-funded employee benefits seminar that candidates had attacked in that election.  We held that the letter did not violate the Rules, reasoning as follows:

 

The local union’s mailing here satisfies the tone element of the review.  It addresses the two issues presented in neutral terms, does not attack the source of the information, avoids self-promoting language, and does not refer to any partisan or political motivation either for the original information or the response.

With respect to content, the issues addressed undoubtedly were ones of concern to the membership.  The local union has suffered a decline in membership and, with it, a decline in revenue.  The letter addressed the suggestion previously made to the membership that traveling to Hawaii for an employee benefits seminar was without beneficial purpose.  It also sought to justify as a cost-saving measure the action of reducing the number of full-time employees of the local union. 

Concerning timing, the communication to the membership came nearly four months after the delegate election was concluded and more than three months before ballots are to be mailed in the International officers election. 

In contrast, Webster’s response was neither factual nor neutral, it attacked the source of the information by referring explicitly to the source’s political motivation, and it used self-promoting language in defense of the officers and agents the campaign literature criticized.

 

            Having found that this paragraph of the Report of the President violated the Rules, we find no further violation in the Teamsters Local 100 Newsletter.  We discuss each of the protestor’s claims to the contrary separately.

 

The first page carried the publication’s title over a photo of Local Union 100’s hall, which was flanked on either side by an historic and the current IBT logos.  Above the title were the words Unity, Strength, Pride, and Dignity, centered between two American flags.  Beneath the photo was the following:

This newsletter is the only official publication of Teamsters Local 100.

All other publications or newsprints without this notice are distributed by others.  See page 8.

Member comments and suggestions are encouraged.  [phone numbers provided]

 

Page 8 of the newsletter, to which the reader was directed by the statement beneath the photo of the local union hall on page 1, displayed in the lower left corner the following –

 

official notice

this newsletter is the only official

publication of teamsters local union 100.

the members recently received a

mailing that resembled the prior

format of the local 100 official

newsletter.  it was a personal

publication of a member, sent at his

own expense, and it was campaign

literature for next years local

100 and ibt elections.  it was not

sponsored by local 100 and it does

not represent the views of local

100 as an organization.

 

Protestor Grone contended this notice constituted impermissible campaigning in a union publication because it “disparages the Teamster News campaign mailer sent by Bucalo.”   

 

We disagree.  The notice made two points, neither of which constituted impermissible campaigning.  It stated first that the Teamsters Local 100 Newsletter was the official publication of Local Union 100.  Second, it confirmed that the Teamster News, the personal publication of Bucalo, was campaign literature, as we held in Hoffa-Hall 2016 and Meyer, 2015 ESD 28 (August 28, 2015), a holding we note Bucalo advocated for.  These two points are both purely factual and newsworthy.  They therefore do not violate the Rules.

 

            The balance of page 8 was comprised of a listing of all executive board members and business agents, together with phone extensions of all full-time officers and staff; a color photo of seven Teamsters employed at KRD Trucking being sworn in at the May general membership meeting of Local Union 100; three color drawings, one depicting Rosie the Riveter, the other two styled on her, showing female industrial workers in heroic poses; a notice about the change in monthly membership meeting dates; and a notice encouraging members to obtain withdrawal cards when leaving their jobs.  Of these items, protestor Grone raised two objections to the photo of the members’ swearing in, which was captioned in part as follows:

 

“proud to be teamsters”

Proud KRD Trucking Teamsters get sworn in during the May Monthly Membership Meeting.  Steward Charlie Gabbard intends to bring this entire group in to be sworn.  If you have never been sworn, or wish to do it again, please attend the Monthly Membership Meetings!

             

First, he contended that newsletter editor Hibbard inserted this material in the newsletter because he has business agent responsibility for KRD Trucking and intended a “back whack”[1] for himself.  Second, Grone objected that the photo was taken showing the members’ faces, which according to Grone meant it was taken by an officer from the front of the meeting room.  We dismiss these objections.  Neither the photo nor caption identified or referred to Hibbard; instead, the presentation was properly focused on the members who appeared in the photo and their steward, who arranged for the unusually large and therefore newsworthy swearing ceremony.  Nothing in the precedents concerning improper use of union-funded publications for campaign purposes bars use of photos taken by officers that depict the faces of the photo subjects.

 

            Returning to page 1, Grone also objected to the lead article, by Local Union 100 president Dave Webster, titled “Right-to-Work and Pension Battles Illustrate the Real War on Workers.”  The article recounted a June 2015 trip to Washington D.C. by Local Union 100 retirees to protest the Multi-Employer Pension Reform Act of 2014 and to meet with U.S. senators and IBT General President Hoffa concerning a legislative effort to protect pension plans.  The article noted the potentially devastating effects that would follow from the failure of the Central States pension plan and similar plans and encouraged members to contact their representatives to address the issue.  The article also warned members to prepare for a legislative battle over enactment of a so-called right-to-work statute, concluding with respect to both issues that “[w]e must prepare for these battles and put forth a determined effort to combat and extinguish any and all attempts to destroy the middle class.”  Grone’s objection to this article was that it was a “re-write of the same two articles he placed in the last two Teamsters Newsletters (Oct 2014 and Jan 2015).”  We reject this objection.  Webster’s article in the August 2015 Teamsters Local 100 Newsletter was topical and newsworthy in that it recounted activity that occurred in June 2015 and addressed two issues that are of general current concern to the membership.

 

            Also on page 1 was an article titled “Teamsters Local 100 Vice President Ron Butts Serves on National UPS Frt. Panel.”  The item recounted a May 2015 appointment of Butts to the panel, which the article said “is thought to be the first such appearance on this panel by a Local 100 Officer.”  The article also listed Butts’ previous experience, along with business agents Brian Sizemore and Dave Hibbard, as sergeants at arms on the Ohio Joint State Committee (OJSC).  Grone contended that the article “panegyrizes” Butts, Sizemore, and Hibbard and rehashed information that was previously reported.  We disagree.  The article reports on the regular activities of the named individuals in a factual manner, not overly or unduly praising their positions.  An article in the January 2015 Teamsters Local 100 Newsletter reported that Butts, Sizemore, and Hibbard served as sergeant at arms on the OJSC in 2014; the current article reports that they remain in those positions and “now sit[] regularly” on various panels.  This reportage is purely factual and directed to the regular functions and duties of the named individuals.  We do not find it panegyric, commendatory, or acclamatory.  Instead, the article informs members that the local union’s officers and business agents hold adjudicatory positions outside the local union that carry potential benefit for local union members.

 

            Grone complained that this information was repeated on page 2, in the Report of the President, the same item which contained the Rules violation we found above.  There, local union president Webster began his report commenting on the many negotiations, arbitrations, and grievance hearings local union officers and staff have handled thus far in 2015 while, in addition, producing and promoting a successful golf outing and joint council picnic.  He then wrote:

 

On another positive note, congratulations to Vice President Ron Butts for being appointed to sit on a Teamsters UPS Freight National Grievance Committee Panel.  This is quite an honor for Ron and Local 100.  It’s rare that any of our Officers or Agents are selected for such a prestigious position.  Along with Local 100 Agent Dave Hibbard, who sits on the Ohio Freight Panel, Local 100 is well represented.  Way to go, guys!

 

We find nothing impermissible about this paragraph.  Webster is “entitled to use union publications to express [his] views” where, as here, they do not promote the candidacy of any individual or otherwise refer to a coming election.

 

            Page 2 also contained the Report of the Secretary Treasurer, Sam Bucalo, which recounted the financial position of the local union in purely factual terms.  The protest complained that the report was two months out of date.  Investigation showed that the report published was the one Bucalo gave editor Hibbard on June 29, 2015.  Under these circumstances, we find nothing improper about the local union publishing the financial report the secretary treasurer presented for publication.

 

            The Report of the Trustees and Recording Secretary also appeared on page 2.  The focus of this article was a description of trustees’ duties, both in reviewing and inspecting the monthly financial reports and in performing other assignments.  The protestor objected to this article as not newsworthy.  We disagree.  For members who are unfamiliar with trustees’ duties (a large majority, we suspect), the article is newsworthy.  Moreover, the article was directed to the regular duties and functions of elected officials and the description was presented in a purely factual way.

 

            Page 3 of the newsletter contained three articles on the left side of the page, two of which the protestor faulted.  The first, an article about the tentative contract with First Student, reported that the tentative national agreement was unanimously approved by the bargaining committee, gave dates for the ratification mail-ballot election, and declared that a ratified contract would be made retroactive to March 15, 2015.  The article also stated that “Agent Abraham has been very successful with the group.  Gary has improved the starting wage by over $2.00 per hour with a memorandum of understanding.”  Protestor Grone argued that this article contained “no information about the contract.  No terms of raises, or changes in the terms and conditions of employment.  It merely states that there will be a vote.  And, it makes a campaign claim that Gary Abraham had increased the wages for these workers.”  We find the article does not violate the Rules.  Contrary to the protestor’s contention, the article reported on the progress toward ratification and implementation of the contract, and that wages under the contract were raised “by over $2.00 per hour,” both of which constituted newsworthy information of general concern to the membership, particularly those employed by First Student.  We reject as without merit the protestor’s claim that the article was to be faulted because it both contained “no information about … raises” and because it reported a wage increase. 

 

            The second article on page 3 that drew objection from the protestor was titled “Local 100 Pursuing Key Organizing Vote Dates.”  It reported on current organizing efforts, the employers involved, and the dates set for election (where established).  The information was presented in a politically neutral, purely factual manner and thus complied with the Rules.  The protestor complained that the article “venerate[d] the names of the officers and agent” involved in organizing.  Where a union publication may permissibly report on the activities of its officers and employees, providing names of the persons engaged in the activities is fully authorized and not objectionable.

 

            Also appearing on the right side of page 3 was a single column titled “Current Status of Local 100 Internal Charges.”  What followed were brief descriptions of five separate cases of alleged misconduct filed under the IBT constitution.  Grone’s protest claimed that the descriptions were “an attack to slander Sam Bucalo.”  However, Grone told our investigator that to his knowledge the descriptions were factual.  He also argued that the local union had not previously published information about the charges, but there is no question that the articles were newsworthy.  At bottom, then, Grone’s protest about the case descriptions was that the newsletter’s factual reportage of newsworthy information violated the Rules.  This contention in no way states a violation of the Rules.

 

            Bucalo is named in each of the five case descriptions.  Our investigator was referred to him by the protestor, and Bucalo disagreed with the protestor that the case descriptions were factual.  Our investigator interviewed Bucalo at length and obtained a volume of documentation from him in support of his claim that the case descriptions were not factual and were misleading.  We note that Bucalo did not file a protest claiming that the newsletter violated the Rules.  However, we treat his evidence and argument as supplemental to Grone’s protest, even where it contradicts claims and concessions Grone made.  Our review encompassed records from the union charges, the newsletter’s report of the proceedings, and each description printed in the newsletter.  In each instance we conclude that the newsletter presented a fair and accurate report of the internal charges and that there is no Rules violation.  A detailed review of Bucalo’s contentions is attached as Appendix A to this decision.  

 

            Turning to the balance of the newsletter, the reports of the seven business agents appeared on three columns of pages 4 and 5, and the left of three columns on page 6.  Each report was topped with the business agent’s name, contact information, and photo, beneath which was a brief report of a few sentences on worksites under his responsibility.  The protestor and Bucalo contended that the presentation of Bucalo’s business agent report showed impermissible partisan bias because it started in the left column of page 4 and jumped to the left column of page 6.  In addition, the protestor and Bucalo contended that Bucalo’s report was cut substantially from the copy he submitted for publication.  We address these two points in the order presented.

 

            First with respect to the arrangement of the reports, we find no evidence of partisan bias.  Bucalo’s report consisted of approximately 12  column inches, yet each column of the newsletter is only 9 ½ column inches long, so it was inevitable that Bucalo’s report would exceed one column length.  We accept the editor’s statement that he configured the reports appropriately to fit the available space.  For Bucalo’s report, the bottom of the first column on page 4 was labeled “Bucalo Agent Report continued on page 6;” the resumption of the report on page 6 was labeled “Bucalo Agent Report (Continued from pg. 4).”  Given this labeling, we see no opportunity for reader confusion.

 

            Second, concerning the editing of Bucalo’s report, the report as printed was shorter than the copy Bucalo submitted.  Comparing the two, however, we find nothing substantive was omitted from the report as printed, and the resulting report was, in our view, more concise and readable.  Even though Bucalo’s report was edited for space, it still was by far the longest of the seven agent reports, as this table demonstrates:

 

 

            The final objection protestor Grone raised concerned the reporting on the First Student negotiations.  The page 3 article credited business agent Gary Abraham, stating, “Agent Abraham has been very successful with the group. Gary has improved the starting wage by over $2.00 per hour with a memorandum of understanding.”  Grone contended that the employer, not Abraham, proposed the wage increase in order to retain employees, and that the newsletter portrayed Abraham more favorably than was justified, for a partisan purpose.  However, Abraham’s agent report did not take a similar tack.  He wrote:

 

In a totally cooperative spirit, First Student has increased starting pay to $15.90 for all drivers.  The company has shown the initiative in order to retain and/or attract new employees.  The union applauds the company’s efforts and better things are yet to come.

 

Balancing these two articles about the First Student negotiations, we find factual reportage with no evidence of puffery or partisan positioning.  Accordingly, we reject the objection concerning First Student.

 

For the reasons stated, we GRANT the protest with respect to the third paragraph of the Report of the President on page 2.  We DENY the protest in all other respects.

 

Remedy

 

When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.”  Article XIII, Section 4.  In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.  “The Election Supervisor’s discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy is broad and is entitled to deference.”  Hailstone & Martinez, 10 EAM 7 (September 14, 2010).

 

            We direct Local Union 100, its president Dave Webster, and its newsletter editor Dave Hibbard, to cease and desist from impermissibly using the local union newsletter or other union publication to respond to campaign claims.

 

            We further direct Local Union 100 to mail the notice attached to this decision to all members of Local Union 100.  If Local Union 100 publishes and deposits in the US Mail to its membership an edition of its newsletter before January 31, 2016, the notice mailing required by this remedy may be satisfied by reprinting it on page 2 of the newsletter, adjacent on the same page to the Report of the President.  Galley proof or the equivalent must be presented to OES adjunct representative Dan Walsh prior to publication and his direction with respect to layout consistent with what is ordered here must be followed. 

 

If Local Union 100 does not publish and mail its newsletter by January 31, 2016, it must mail the notice attached to this decision to all members by that same date, using US Mail first class pre-sort or better.

 

We order this notice distribution to inform the members of the Rules requirements, that certain local union officials have violated the Rules, and to deter future violations.

 

Proof of compliance with the notice publication must be made to OES within three (3) days of completing it.

 

            A decision of the Election Supervisor takes immediate effect unless stayed.  Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996).

 

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:

 

Kathleen A. Roberts

Election Appeals Master

JAMS

620 Eighth Avenue, 34^th floor

New York, NY 10018

kroberts@jamsadr.com

 

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, 1050 17^th Street, N.W., Suite 375, Washington, D.C. 20036, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

 

                                                                        Richard W. Mark

                                                                        Election Supervisor

cc:        Kathleen A. Roberts

            2015 ESD 60 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):

Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

braymond@teamster.org

 

David J. Hoffa

1701 K Street NW, Ste 350

Washington DC 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

 

Teamsters United

315 Flatbush Avenue, #501

Brooklyn, NY 11217

info@teamstersunited.org

 

Louie Nikolaidis

350 West 31^st Street, Suite 40

New York, NY 10001

lnikolaidis@lcnlaw.com

 

Julian Gonzalez

350 West 31^st Street, Suite 40

New York, NY 10001

jgonzalez@lcnlaw.com

 

David O’Brien Suetholz

515 Park Avenue

Louisville, KY 45202

dave@unionsidelawyers.com

 

Fred Zuckerman

P.O. Box 9493

Louisville, KY 40209

fredzuckerman@aol.com

Dan Grone

7962 Snider Rd

Mason, OH 45040

groneland@icloud.com

 

Teamsters Local Union 100

2100 Oak Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45241

sarahm@teamsterslocal100.com

 

Sam Bucalo

6158 Kingoak Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45248

sammo1245@aol.com

 

Lia Lockert

P.O. Box 17

Peninsula, OH 44264

lialockert@gmail

 

Dan Walsh

950 Duxbury Court

Cincinnati, OH 45255

djw4947@gmail.com

 

John Pegula

1434 Greendale Dr.

Pittsburgh, PA 15239

jpegula@ibtvote.org

 

Jeffrey Ellison

214 S. Main Street, Suite 210

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

EllisonEsq@aol.com

Office of the Election Supervisor

for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

1050 17^th Street, N.W., Suite 375

Washington, D.C.  20036

202-429-8683

844-428-8683 Toll Free

202-774-5526 Facsimile

ElectionSupervisor@ibtvote.org

www.ibtvote.org

 

Richard W. Mark

Election Supervisor

 

NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 100

 

The Election Supervisor has found that Local Union 100, its president, Dave Webster, and its newsletter editor, Dave Hibbard, violated the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by impermissibly using the union-funded Teamsters Local 100 Newsletter, published by Local Union 100 in August 2015, to respond to campaign literature published by a candidate.  The improper campaigning was contained in the “Report of the President” column of that newsletter, where President Webster criticized campaign material a candidate had previously circulated among the membership and defended local union officials and employees that the campaign material had criticized. 

The Rules prohibit use of a union-funded publication to campaign for or against a candidate.  President Webster as a member and a candidate may campaign for himself and others, but he must not use the union newsletter, paid for with union dues, to do so.  Hibbard, as the newsletter editor, must not permit the newsletter to be used for campaigning.

The Election Supervisor will not permit any such violations of the Rules.  The Election Supervisor has ordered Local Union 100, Webster, and Hibbard to stop using union-funded publications to support or attack any candidate.

The Election Supervisor has issued this decision in Grone, 2015 ESD 60 (December 17, 2015).  You may read this decision at https://www.ibtvote.org/Protest-Decisions/esd2015/2015esd060.  

 

            Any protest you have regarding your rights under the Rules or any conduct by any person or entity that violates the Rules should be filed with Richard W. Mark, 1050 17^th Street, N.W., Suite 375, Washington, D.C.  20036, telephone: 844-428-8683, fax: 202-774-5526, email: electionsupervisor@ibtvote.org.