OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: OLIVIA HARR, ) Protest Decision 2020 ESD 22
) Issued: October 3, 2020
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-030-092520-GP
____________________________________)
Olivia Harr, member of Local Union 222, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protest alleged that the Local Union 222 failed to make certain postings associated with its delegates and alternate delegates election, as required by the Rules.
Election Supervisor representative Jim Devine investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
The Rules require each local union to submit for approval of the Election Supervisor a local union election plan (LUEP) for its delegates and alternate delegates election. Article II, Section 4. The LUEP proposes dates for nominations meeting, mailing of ballots, and counting of ballots, among other things. Article II, Section 4(b). Once the plan is submitted, the local union must post notice to the membership that the plan has been submitted. Article II, Section 4(e). Once the plan is submitted, members have the opportunity to obtain the full LUEP, including appendices, from the local union at no cost; members may also view the LUEP, excluding appendices, on the Election Supervisor’s website, IBTvote.org. Article II, Section 4(c) and (f). Members have the right to submit comments on the LUEP to the Election Supervisor. Article II, Section 4(d).
Once a local union election plan is approved, the Rules require the Election Supervisor to prepare an Election Plan Summary, delineating all relevant information, e.g., date, time and location of the nominations meeting, basic criteria for participation in the election as a nominator or candidate, and the schedule for mail balloting. Article II, Section 4(h) provides that not later than seven days after the Local Union has received the Plan Summary, it is required to post the Plan Summary on all local union bulletin boards. In addition, if the local union maintains a website that has the technical capacity to allow the posting of notices to the membership on the site, the local union is required to post the Plan Summary there as well. Article II, Section 4(h). The plan summary is posted on the Election Supervisor website as well. Article II, Section 4(i).
Local Union 222 submitted its proposed LUEP on August 20, 2020. Comments on the plan were received on September 2, 2020, proposing a different day of the week and time of day for the nominations meeting and objecting to the local union’s use of an election services vendor to conduct the election. The Election Supervisor issued a written response to the comments on September 16, 2020. On September 18, 2020, the Election Supervisor approved the LUEP and issued the Election Plan Summary.
The instant protest was filed September 25, 2020, before the end of the seven-day period the Rules grant for posting of the Election Plan Summary. The protest made three allegations. Thus, it asserted that the notice of submission of the LUEP was not posted on all electronic media the local union maintains, including an app that is available to a segment of the local union membership. Further, it alleged that the Election Plan Summary was posted on bulletin boards without including the comments on the plan and the Election Supervisor’s response to those comments. Finally, it asserted that the Election Plan Summary was not posted on local union electronic media.
Investigation showed that the local union timely posted the Election Plan Summary on all union bulletin boards at worksites under its jurisdiction. With respect to the local union Facebook page, investigation showed that the summary was posted there as well. Finally, the summary was posted so that it is accessible on the app the local union has established, which presently is used by fewer than 100 members of the local union (the local union’s average membership exceeds 3,600).
On the allegation that the notice of submission of the LUEP was not timely posted after the local union submitted it on August 20, 2020, investigation found no facts to support the allegation. Further, this aspect of the protest is untimely filed. Article XIII, Section 2(b) requires that protests be filed within two working days following the date the protestor “becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested.” Untimely protests are deemed waived. The instant protest was filed more than a month after the LUEP was submitted. Moreover, an ally of protestor filed written comments on the proposed LUEP, demonstrating that no prejudice followed the alleged failure to post the notice of LUEP submission on electronic media.
Finally, protestor’s claim that the Election Plan Summary that is posted must include the comments submitted on the proposed plan and the Election Supervisor’s response to those comments has no support in the Rules. The additional documents are available on the Election Supervisor’s website pursuant to Article II, Section 4(f). Nothing in the Rules requires that they also be posted on local union bulletin boards or electronic media.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY this protest in its entirety.
We turn now to the application protestor made during the course of the investigation that the investigator assigned to the protest be replaced. The rationale cited was that the investigator had obstructed an unrelated request that protestor and her allies made to Local Union 222’s secretary-treasurer that Local Union 222 verify their eligibility to be nominated for delegate or alternate delegate. Article VI, Section 4(a) of the Rules provides that a candidate’s request for verification of eligibility “be made to the Election Supervisor and shall not be sent to the Union.” The reason this rule exists is that the Election Supervisor makes eligibility determinations with respect to delegates and alternate delegates; such determinations are not made by the local union or its secretary-treasurer. Our investigator’s instruction to the secretary-treasurer conformed with the applicable rule. It did not constitute “obstruction,” as the protestor termed it, nor was the instruction made out of “ignorance” of the Rules, as protestor alleged. Accordingly, protestor’s application is denied for lack of merit.
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. Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i). All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Barbara Jones
Election Appeals Master
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.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, all within the time prescribed above. Service may be accomplished by email, using the “reply all” function on the email by which the party received this decision. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones
2020 ESD 22
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
braymond@teamster.org
Edward Gleason
egleason@gleasonlawdc.com
Patrick Szymanski
szymanskip@me.com
Will Bloom
wbloom@dsgchicago.com
Tom Geoghegan
tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com
Rob Colone
rmcolone@hotmail.com
Barbara Harvey
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Kevin Moore
Mooregp2021@gmail.com
F.C. “Chris” Silvera
fitzverity@aol.com
Fred Zuckerman
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
ken@tdu.org
Olivia Harr
Oford10@gmail.com
Local Union 222
Spencer Hogue, Secretary-Treasurer
s.hogue@teamsterslocal222.org
Dale Varney
Dvarney3860@gmail.com
Jim Devine
jdevine@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com