Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: HOFFA-HALL 2016,                      )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 151

                                                                        )           Issued: March 21, 2016

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-046-090815-NA     

____________________________________)                      

Hoffa-Hall 2016 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 questioned the authenticity of signatures on certain accreditation petitions circulated by Jakwan Rivers on behalf of Teamsters United. 

            Election Supervisor representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

Article X of the Rules permitted candidates and slates of candidates for International office to seek accredited status by which they could publish campaign material in Teamster magazine and obtain a union-wide membership list to be used to advance their candidacies for International office.  To obtain accredited status, each such candidate or slate was required to obtain signatures on petitions of at least 2.5% of the membership of the union-wide or regional membership pool applicable to the office sought. 

Investigation showed that Rivers, a member of Local Union 237, solicited accreditation signatures at events and outside workplaces within that local union.  The solicitations occurred at various times between the date the Rules became effective in May 2015 and the date Teamsters United submitted the petitions to OES for review in August 2015.  Twenty petitions bearing Rivers’s name and signature as the petition circulator were submitted to OES as part of the effort of the Teamsters United slate to achieve accreditation under the Rules.  Each petition bearing Rivers’s name and signature as circulator had fifteen handwritten names, local union numbers, and SSN4s[1] of individuals;  these were printed neatly in black ink and, from similarities when comparing one line to the next, by a single individual.  Each line also bore the signature (i.e., a cursive writing of the name), in blue or black ink that corresponded with the name of the person on the same line; the handwriting styles varied dramatically from line to line and prima facie were the signatures of the persons named.  Rivers explained that he appeared at all events and workplace exits where signatures were solicited, accompanied by a person who had the ability to write neatly, whom we term a “scribe,” for the purpose of insuring that the member information collected on the petitions was legible.  When Rivers encountered members who agreed to sign the petition, Rivers had the member give his/her name and other identifying information to the scribe, who entered it on the petition.  The scribe then gave the petition to the member, who signed on the line containing his/her name.  Rivers stated that he was present and witnessed each signature entered on the twenty petitions he circulated.

Article X, Section 2(a)(3) requires the circulator of the petition to certify the validity and accuracy of its contents, a certification that cannot be done if the circulator does not witness each signature on the petition. The certifying language declares that the circulator “certif[ies] that the signatures on this sheet were signed in my presence and are genuine.”  See Thornsberry, 2000 EAD 48 (November 17, 2000) (“The purpose of the rule requiring certification of petition signatures is to serve as a check against fraud; that purpose is circumvented entirely if the individual certifying the signatures has not witnessed them in the first instance.”); and Thornsberry, 2005 ESD 9 (September 8, 2005). We find that the method Rivers employed satisfied the requirements of Article X, Section 2(a)(3).

We found no anomalies that raised suspicion concerning the validity of other petitions circulated in Local Union 237.

We note that Article X, Section 2(a) requires that accreditation petitions “may only be circulated by a member in good standing.”  In Eligibility of Rivers, 2015 ESD 32 (September 21, 2015), we found Rivers ineligible for International office because of interruptions in his continuous good standing with Local Union 237 during the eligibility period.  Details of that decision demonstrate that Rivers was in arrears on his dues during the entire period when accreditation petitions were circulated.  Accordingly, Rivers was not a member in good standing when circulating the petitions, and the petitions therefore were void.

For this reason alone, we GRANT the protest and invalidate the twenty petitions containing a total of 300 signatures that Rivers obtained.  The protest in this matter was filed during the period that OES was reviewing the accreditation petitions submitted by Teamsters United.  Local Union 237 is situated in the IBT East region.  Petition signatures on the twenty petitions Rivers circulated among members of this local union were intended to count toward accreditation of union-wide candidates and East region vice president candidates on the Teamsters United slate.  Our review of the petitions Teamsters United submitted found 53,896 complete, validated signatures for union-wide candidates, well in excess of the 30,974 needed to accredit them.  In addition, we found 17,523 complete, validated signatures for the slate’s East region candidate, more than double the 8,648 signatures necessary to accredit him.  Subtracting the 300 signatures on petitions Rivers circulated from each of these totals does not impair the accreditation we previously granted to union-wide and regional candidates on the Teamsters United slate.  We order no further remedy.  See Certain Accreditation Petitions from Local Union 938, 2016 ESD 150 (March 21, 2016).

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 151

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):