OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: JAMES BREAZZANO, ) Protest Decision 2021 ESD 92
- ) Issued: March 25, 2021
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-087-022621-NE
____________________________________)
James Breazzano, member of Local Union 210, 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 his written nomination for delegate was improperly disregarded by the local union.
Election Supervisor representative Peter Marks investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
According to its local union election plan, Local Union 210 will send 11 delegates and 3 alternate delegates to the IBT convention. The local union conducted its nominations meeting on January 6, 2021, and nominations for 11 candidates for delegate and 3 for alternate delegate were received. The nominations were declared closed at that time. As the number of nominated candidates did not exceed the number to be elected for either position, all candidates were declared elected.
Protestor Breazzano, an independent candidate for delegate, filed this protest asserting that he had timely submitted valid nomination documents and was not treated as a nominated candidate. Investigation showed that Breazzano emailed a written nomination, a written second of nomination, and a written acceptance to local union secretary treasurer George Miranda on January 4, 2021, with copy to OES.
The local union responded to the protest by stating that Miranda did not receive the documents Breazzano emailed on January 4. The local union stated further that Breazzano’s protest, filed February 26, was untimely. We address these responses in the order presented.
It is a fact that Breazzano sent the nominating documents as attachments to a single email on January 4, addressed to Miranda with a copy to OES. This is certain because OES received the email with the stated attachments that date, which was timely under the Rules. Further, the email address listed for Miranda on the email is accurate. Despite these facts, Miranda denied receiving the email.
As for the timing of Breazzano’s protest, investigation showed that he informed his chief steward before the nominations meeting of intention to run for delegate. On or about January 12, he contacted the chief steward to ask whether he had heard anything about the nomination. According to Breazzano, the steward said he had not. At this, Breazzano phoned the local union to inquire. Breazzano said that the person at the local union could not confirm receipt of the nomination documents but told him that the “votes were being counted still” and that he would have to wait. Breazzano does not know the name of the person at the local union he spoke with, but he produced phone records to our investigator to substantiate the call. Breazzano contacted OES the same date he called the local union and was advised that his nomination documents had been received by OES on January 4.
Still hearing nothing a month later, Breazzano followed up with his chief steward, who had no information about the nomination but passed the inquiry up his command chain. With no information forthcoming, this protest was filed.
Article II, Section 5(f) permits members who are eligible to nominate or second a nomination to do so in writing by following the requirements of that provision as to form, timing, and delivery. Article II, Section 5(i) permits a nominated candidate to accept nomination in writing, in accord with the dictates of that provision. Writings may be submitted by email. We examined the nominating documents and find that Breazzano’s nominator and seconder were eligible to perform those functions, that their writings complied with the Rules, and that Breazzano timely submitted them to the local union. We find further that Breazzano was eligible for nomination, that his written acceptance complied with the Rules, and that it was submitted timely to the union.
On the factual issue of the local union’s receipt of Breazzano’s email transmitting the written nomination, second, and acceptance, we conclude on the preponderance of evidence the investigation gathered that the email was received but not read or otherwise registered at the local union. Although Breazzano sent the email, the sender listed on the email was a generic name associated with a cloud-based scanner account. In addition, the subject line of the email did not identify the contents as election-related or state its source with particularity; instead, the subject line identified the subject as “Scanned document from HP ePrint user.” The body of the email likewise did not address the contents, except to state the following:
This email and attachment are sent on behalf of [protestor’s email address].
If you do not want to receive this email in future, you may contact [protestor’s email address] directly or you may consult your email application for spam or junk email filtering options.
Regards,
HP Team
Given the appearance and content of the email, we find it likely that the recipient deleted it—perhaps inadvertently—without recognizing the email had been sent by a member and concerned the election.
For these reasons, we GRANT the protest. We order Local Union 210 to deem Breazzano eligible for nomination and validly nominated, and we direct that the local union election plan be amended, in consultation with OES’s regional director, such that an election may be conducted promptly, with appropriate notice to the local union membership.
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
2021 ESD 92
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
James Breazzano
skiingbulldog@msn.com
Teamsters Local Union 210
George Miranda
gmiranda@ibtlocal210.org
Maralin Falik
maralin@voteges.com
Peter Marks
pmarks@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com