OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: GREG EDENS, ) Protest Decision 2021 ESD 79
) Issued: March 12, 2021
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-107-031221-MW
____________________________________)
Greg Edens, member of Local Union 710, 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 Local Union 710 principal officer Mike Cales violated the Rules by suggesting to a candidate on another slate that they combine slates.
Election Supervisor representative William Broberg investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Local Union 710 will elect 17 delegates and 10 alternate delegates to the IBT convention. Three full slates are competing in the election. Ballots are to be mailed March 23, 2021 and counted April 30, 2021.
Principal officer Cales, a candidate on the Cales/Schaefer Members First slate, told our investigator that he contacted candidates on the two other slates and suggested that, because he believed all three slates support the same candidates for International office, they could save the local union the expense of an election by agreeing to a list of members who would serve as delegates and alternate delegates to the convention.[1]
Because the nominations meeting has been held and slate declarations filed, the only means to avoid an election now is for multiple candidates on at least two if not all three slates to revoke their acceptances of nomination such that the remaining candidates are unopposed. Article II, Section 5(k) permits such revocation of acceptance. The arrangement Cales suggested could meet the Rules’ requirements provided no candidate was coerced to revoke his/her acceptance.
Cales did not violate the Rules by discussing with opposing slate members the circumstances that might result in a white ballot.
For these reasons, we DENY the 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. 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 79
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
Greg Edens
gsedens@yahoo.com
Doug Holler
Dougholler710@gmail.com
Brian Paulson
Brianpaulson18@gmail.com
Teamsters Local Union 710
election@teamsters710.org
mcales@teamsters710.org
Maralin Falik
maralin@voteges.com
William Broberg
wbroberg@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com
[1] On March 19, 2021, a week after this decision issued, Cales contacted our office seeking to correct the statement in this paragraph. He stated that he believed the three slates agreed on a proposed amendment to the IBT Constitution that concerns the so-called “two-thirds” rule for contract ratification. He said he did not intend to communicate any view to our investigator concerning the electoral preferences of the three slates, as he said he did not know what they were when our investigator contacted him. We have re-issued this decision as a “corrected” decision. The correction does not change our analysis.