OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: DALE VARNEY and ) Protest Decision 2021 ESD 62
OLIVIA HARR, ) Issued: February 23, 2021
) OES Case No. P-075-021021-GP
Protestors. )
____________________________________)
Dale Varney and Olivia Harr, members 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 Garrett Tuttle, member of and business agent for Local Union 222, violated the Rules by offering to buy burritos that the 222 for OZ slate was selling as a campaign fundraiser.
Election Supervisor representative Jim Devine investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Local Union 222 will elect five delegates and four alternate delegates to the IBT convention. Two slates are contesting the election. The 222 for OZ slate is managed by protestor Varney; protestor Harr is a delegate candidate on that slate, which consists of rank-and-file members. The Teamsters United for Power slate is comprised local union principal officer Spencer Hogue, other officers and business agents of the local union, and rank-and-file members.
To raise campaign funds, the 222 for OZ slate has sold burritos at $5 each in employer parking lots, catering to members who work there. This activity is regulated by Article XI of the Rules, which specifies that only union members may make campaign contributions (including in the form of purchase of food and beverage sold to generate campaign funds). No union may contribute to a candidate’s campaign, and no candidate may accept union funds. Article XI, Section 1(b).
On February 8, 2021, business agent Tuttle sought to purchase burritos from the 222 for OZ slate for use at a meeting he was conducting with members at the union hall that day. Tuttle supports the Teamsters United for Power slate but is not a candidate in the delegates and alternate delegates election. He told Hogue that he intended to buy the burritos for use at a meeting of members he was hosting that day at the local union. Both he and Hogue confirmed to our investigator that he intended to use personal funds and would not be reimbursed by the union for the purchase. Such reimbursement would violate the Rules because it would constitute a union contribution to a candidate.
Tuttle contacted the 222 for OZ slate repeatedly that morning, by text messages to Varney and by posts on the slate’s Facebook page, seeking to find out where they were selling burritos so he could pick them up.
Harr told our investigator she was suspicious of Tuttle’s intentions. She said she barely knew Tuttle but understood he supported the opposing slate. She was concerned that Tuttle would attempt to purchase the burritos with union funds.
Varney shared Harr’s suspicions. He speculated that Tuttle’s offer was a ruse to trap the 222 for OZ slate into accepting union funds for a campaign purpose in violation of Article XI, Section 1(b)(3) and (8).
Varney delivered eight burritos to the union hall but refused to accept payment for them. Tuttle attempted to make payment by placing $40 cash of his personal funds in an envelope and placing it in Varney’s cubby at his workplace.
Varney and Harr filed this protest, alleging that Tuttle’s offer to purchase violated the Rules because it “trolled” them.
We DENY the protest. The Rules do not prohibit Tuttle’s conduct described here. As a member, he retains the right to make political contributions with personal funds, including the purchase of food from an opposing slate, provided he does not exceed the contribution limit the Rules impose, which for delegate and alternate delegate elections is $1,000. Article XI, Section 1(b)(12)(C). The 222 for OZ slate was free to accept the contribution from Tuttle under these terms, i.e., that the contribution came from Tuttle’s personal funds and he had not exceeded his contribution limit, but nothing required that the slate accept the contribution.
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 62
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
Dale Varney
Dvarney3860@gmail.com
Olivia Harr
Oford10@gmail.com
Garrett Tuttle
garrett@teamsterslocal222.org
Teamsters Local Union 222
Spencer Hogue, Secretary-Treasurer
s.hogue@teamsterslocal222.org
Jim Devine
jdevine@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com