Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: JAIME VASQUEZ,                         )           Protest Decision 2021 ESD 108

                                                                        )           Issued: April 20, 2021

Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-114-031721-FW

____________________________________)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In Vasquez, 2021 ESD 104 (April 9, 2021), we found that members and supporters of the Members for Members 542 slate repeatedly violated the Rules by accessing employer workspaces under false pretenses and campaigning where no preexisting right to campaign existed.  We further found that 5 individuals, 4 of whom were delegate candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate, repeatedly made false protest allegations or false statements in protest investigations, which violated the Rules.  We ordered an interim remedy, which included fines to the 5 individuals we found violated the Rules and a notice posting on all union bulletin boards.  We reserved further remedy “until the ballots in the election have been tallied and we can determine whether the Rules violations found here may have affected the outcome of the election.”  No appeal was taken from that decision.

Twenty candidates, divided between two slates, competed to fill the local union’s ten convention delegate seats.  The tally of ballots in this race, completed April 14, 2021, showed the following:

The tally for the six alternate delegate positions showed the following:

            Eight of the ten ranked delegate candidates and four of the six ranked delegate candidates were from the Members for Members 542 slate.  However, the margin between the ranked delegate candidate with the fewest votes – Adam King of the Members for Members 542 slate – and the unranked candidate from the opposing slate with the greatest tally, Cliff Cunningham, was only 10 votes.  Further, in the alternate delegates election, the margin between the ranked candidate from the Members for Members 542 slate with the fewest votes, Cesar Garcia, and the unranked candidate from the opposing slate with the most votes, Ed Swank, was only 17 votes. 

            In Vasquez, we found that candidates and supporters of the Member for Members 542 impermissibly sought campaign access to multiple employer worksites by claiming falsely that they had the right to inspect the union bulletin board in the workplace.  At two of the worksites, the campaigners were denied access.  At others, they gained access and, once inside, campaigned where no preexisting right to campaign existed.  During the course of the investigation, slate leader Derek Correia and member Craig Chappell admitted that they sought and obtained access to multiple additional employer workspaces by falsely asserting they had the right to inspect bulletin board (Correia asserted this approach was used at “30 to 40” employer worksites; Chappell said it was used at “well over 40” worksites).  The campaign misconduct we found at the specific worksites discussed in Vasquez, combined with the admission that the same misconduct was committed pervasively, demonstrates that the Members for Members 542 slate took to itself an advantage of campaign access that both violated the Rules and that members and supporters of the Teamsters 542 Members First slate did not engage in.  In this context, the Rules’ guarantee of a level playing field between competing slates was violated.

The cost to Local Union 542 of the just concluded delegates and alternate delegates election exceeded $29,000.  As noted, we reserved further remedy to a later decision based in part on a determination of whether the Rules violations may have affected the outcome of the election.  The additional remedies presently under consideration are the following, whether singly or in combination: 1) a rerun election, with the election expense to be paid by the Members for Members 542 slate; 2) disqualification of Derek Correia, Craig Chappell, Javier Sanchez, and Norman Sauceda from a rerun election, if conducted, or from the election just concluded, if a rerun election is not conducted; and 3) disqualification of all candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate, if a rerun election is not conducted.

            WE ORDER the Members for Members 542 slate to SHOW CAUSE why the Local Union 542 delegates and alternate delegates election should not be rerun, at the expense of slate members;

            WE FURTHER ORDER the Members for Members 542 slate to SHOW CAUSE why slate members Derek Correia, Craig Chappell, Norman Sauceda, and Javier Sanchez should not be disqualified as delegate candidates from a rerun election, if conducted, or from the election just concluded, if a rerun election is not conducted. 

WE FURTHER ORDER the Members for Members 542 slate to SHOW CAUSE why all members of its slate – delegate candidates and alternate delegate candidates – should not be disqualified as delegate candidates in the election just concluded, in the event a rerun election is not conducted.

In responding to the Order to Show Cause, consideration should be given to the precedents in Richards, 2001 EAD 328 (April 26, 2001), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2001 EAM 63 (May 3, 2001); Reyes, 2011 ESD 281, aff’d, 2011 EAM 50 (June 24, 2011); and Schultz, 2016 ESD 224 (May 26, 2016).

The Members for Members 542 slate must show cause, in writing, to the Office of the Election Supervisor, no later than Thursday, April 22, at 4 p.m. EDT (1 p.m. PDT).  Failure to respond timely will be deemed a failure to show cause.

Any other interested party is permitted to respond to this Order to Show Cause with its own statement of position, by the same submission deadline.

            This Order to Show Cause does not dispose of any claim or determine any rights under the Rules.  Accordingly, it does not constitute a determination of a protest under Article XIII, Section 2(i) and is not subject to the appeal rights of that provision.  Appeal rights will attach to the Election Supervisor’s determination of appropriate remedy in this matter, which will issue after return of this Order to Show Cause.

cc:        Barbara Jones

            2021 ESD 108

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED):