Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF                            )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 75

            KIRK SIKORA,                                )           Issued: January 17, 2016

                                                                        )           OES Case No. E-091-011116-SO

            Local Union 327.                                )                      

____________________________________)

            Joe Bennett and Doris Tigg, members of Local Union 327, 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 Kirk Sikora is ineligible for nomination as delegate to the IBT convention for alleged failure to maintain 24 consecutive months of good standing.  

            Election Supervisor representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Rules provides that “to be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate or International Officer position, one must:  (1) be a member in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one’s dues paid to the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments; (2) be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination; and (3) be eligible to hold office if elected.”

The nominations meeting for Local Union 327’s delegates and alternate delegates election was held January 9, 2016.  Therefore, the 24-month period during which candidates must be in continuous good standing in order to be eligible for nomination ran from January 2014 through December 2015.  The protest alleged that Sikora is ineligible for delegate because he was on honorable withdrawal status during the month of January 2014 and therefore has only 23 consecutive months of good standing.

To verify Sikora’s eligibility during this period, we reviewed TITAN records for dues remitted on his behalf.  Sikora’s TITAN shows that he was a check-off dues payer employed by Cassens Transport.  During the eligibility period we examined, the TITAN record shows that Sikora was on honorable withdrawal status for the month of January 2014, with the withdrawal card being deposited February 4, 2014.  Thereafter, the dues history shows consistent and timely payment of dues for the remaining 23 months of the eligibility period.   

To assess Sikora’s eligibility for delegate, we focus our inquiry on January 2014, when TITAN records indicate Sikora was on withdrawal status.  Under Article XVIII, Section 6(a) of the IBT constitution, “[w]hen a member becomes unemployed in the jurisdiction of the Local Union, he shall be issued an honorable withdrawal card upon his request.”  Withdrawal status excuses the member’s obligation to pay dues.  However, withdrawal will also generally interrupt continuous good standing, “[p]rovided, however, that if a member on withdrawal deposits his card in the month immediately following the month for which it was effective and pays his dues for both months in a timely manner as provided in Article X, Section 5(c), such period of withdrawal shall not be considered a break in continuous good standing in the Local Union.”  IBT constitution, Article II, Section 4(a)(1).  The IBT constitution states further that, for purposes of assessing a member’s entitlement to withdrawal status during a period of unemployment, “[a] member is not considered to be unemployed if the member is on sick leave, Family Medical Leave, or worker’s compensation and retains reemployment rights with an employer party to a collective bargaining agreement.” 

In support of the protest, protestor Tigg submitted her signed statement dated January 14, 2016 declaring that Sikora phoned her on November 27, 2013 “to request that I put him on withdrawal since he was out for surgery.”  Tigg said she complied with Sikora’s request the same day.  Tigg’s statement said further that Sikora phoned her again on February 4, 2014 and stated “he had returned to work at Cassens Transport.  On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, I deposited Kirk Sikora’s Withdrawal card and started his dues for the month of February 2014.” 

Sikora disputes Tigg’s account, denying that he requested a withdrawal card.  Moreover, Sikora states that he was out of work at Cassens Transport for surgery to repair a work-related injury, which by definition does not constitute “unemployment” that would permit a local union to issue a withdrawal card under the IBT constitution.

We need not resolve the factual dispute between Tigg and Sikora, however.  Evidence establishes that Sikora returned to work at Cassens in January 2014.  Thus, a paystub covering the period January 16 to 31, 2014 shows that Sikora earned and was paid wages, and that full monthly dues were deducted from the pay he earned during this January 2014 pay period.  Accordingly, Sikora’s “unemployment,” if he had any within the meaning of the withdrawal provisions of the IBT constitution, ended upon his return to work with Cassens in January 2014.  Whether a withdrawal card was properly issued him or not, it should have been deposited upon his return to work in January 2014, because a member who is actively employed under the jurisdiction of the local union is not eligible for withdrawal status.  Because Sikora worked in January 2014 and had dues deducted and remitted to the local union by his employer from wages earned that month, he was in good standing for that month.  

            Accordingly, we find Sikora has maintained continuous good standing for all 24 months of the eligibility period and is therefore ELIGIBLE to stand for delegate in Local Union 327’s delegates and alternate delegates election.

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

            2016 ESD 75 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):