Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: JOE DARMENTO,                         )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 269

                                                                        )           Issued: July 15, 2016

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case Nos. P-264-041616-MW 

____________________________________)

            Joe Darmento, member of Local Union 2727 and candidate for International office, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(a) of the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that Local Union 2727 principal officer Tim Boyle used union resources to respond to campaign material distributed by Darmento, in violation of the Rules.

            Election Supervisor representative Joe Childers investigated this protest. 

Findings of Fact and Analysis

Darmento was a candidate for the sole delegate seat in Local Union 2727’s delegate and alternate delegate election.  Boyle was the successful candidate for that seat, bettering Darmento by 118 votes on 663 ballots counted at the tally conducted April 5, 2016. 

On April 7, 2016, Darmento sent a blast email to the Local Union 2727 membership.  The email thanked the members who supported him in the delegate election and then promoted the Teamsters United slate of candidates for International office while attacking the Hoffa-Hall 2016 slate of candidates.  A particular focus of the attack on the Hoffa-Hall 2016 slate concerned what the email called the “stalled” negotiations for a successor contract in Local Union 2727, a contract that when approved would succeed a “concessionary” contract that previously had been negotiated. 

For this blast email, Darmento used the vendor designated by the local union for campaigning during the delegate election, paying the cost of the distribution from personal funds.  Investigation showed that Darmento forwarded his content directly to the vendor, and the vendor sent it out to the list of email addresses the local union had previously supplied to it.  Darmento at no time possessed the list. 

A week later, on April 15, Boyle, the elected delegate from Local Union 2727 and its principal officer, sent a four paragraph email to the local union’s membership.  The email subject line read “April 15, 2016 update” and was the regular instalment in a series of updates Boyle sent to the membership.  The first paragraph stated that the negotiating committee would soon meet with the employer and the mediator to continue negotiations.  The second paragraph addressed eligibility for retiree medical insurance, an issue several members had raised with the local union.  The third and fourth paragraphs of the email responded to Darmento’s campaign email as follows:

I’d also like to take a moment to address a recent message sent to members from a Delegate Election candidate.  Contrary to the rhetoric, your Union representatives have been working diligently to enforce the Collective Bargaining Agreement and negotiate better wages, benefits, work rules and working conditions.  Our success in negotiations, implementation, and enforcement of the CBA depends on the UNITY of our members, NOT DIVISION!

In the midst of negotiating our future solidarity is needed now more than ever. As we continue to bargain it is imperative that we stand with our brothers and sisters and remember; OUR UNITY IS OUR STRENGTH!

Darmento alleged that Boyle’s email violated the Rules by using union resources to respond to his campaign message on behalf of the Teamsters United slate of International officer candidates. 

We disagree.  In Fuentes, 2006 ESD 258 (May 19, 2006), the protestor alleged that a worksite speech made to members on their lunch break by a delegate candidate violated the Rules, where the speech requested unity during contract negotiations.  The protest alleged that the candidate, who was also principal officer of the local union, implied that a less favorable contract would be negotiated if members did not support her candidacy.  We held as follows:

The protestor contends that Pope’s statements evince an intention on her part to negotiate a poor contract for White Rose employees if they do not support her in the delegate election.

We reject this contention.  We find that Pope sought to convey that employees gain strength through solidarity and that they stand to benefit if the employer concludes that they are united. Such sentiment is as old as the labor movement and is repeated, by incumbents and challengers alike, in virtually every union election.  The potential harm of a poor contract that Pope identified was not, as the protestor contends, harm that would result from any malicious action Pope might take.  Instead, it was a result that might occur if the employer detected and exploited a lack of solidarity. 

            Here, Boyle’s email message advocated for unity among the membership in the specific context of contract negotiations with the employer.  It did not address expressly or impliedly the International officer election or the candidates standing in that election.  The reference to a “Delegate Election candidate” identified the message to which Boyle responded, but did not engage or expand in any way on voting for or against any candidate.  Also, the local union’s delegate election had concluded more than a week before the email was sent.

            On these facts, we find no Rules violation and DENY this protest. 

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 269

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):