Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

 

IN RE: JAIME VASQUEZ,                         )           Protest Decision 2021 ESD 109

                                                                        )           Issued: April 27, 2021

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

____________________________________)

 

In Vasquez, 2021 ESD 104 (April 9, 2021), we found that candidates on 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, 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 this decision.

 

In Vasquez, 2021 ESD 108 (April 20, 2021), we ordered the Members for Members 542 slate to show cause why the Local Union 542 delegates and alternate delegates election should not be rerun, with the rerun election occurring at the expense of the slate.  We further ordered the slate to show cause why four delegate candidates, Derek Correia, Craig Chappell, Norman Sauceda, and Javier Sanchez, should not be disqualified, whether from the election just concluded or, if one is ordered, from a rerun election.  Finally, we ordered the slate to show cause why all members of the slate should not be disqualified.

 

The slate timely responded to the show cause order, and we have considered all points raised in that response together with the findings of fact we made in related decisions.  On these findings, we order that Local Union 542’s delegates and alternate delegates election be rerun, that Correia, Chappell, Sauceda, and Sanchez be disqualified from the rerun election, and that the expense of the rerun election be carried by the members of Local Union 542 through their local union treasury.  Our reasons for each element of this order follow.

 

The Rerun Order.

 

            The protest we decided in Vasquez, 2021 ESD 104 (referred to here as “ESD 104”), alleged campaigning misconduct by the Members for Members 542 slate.  It was filed and decided pre-election.  We found campaign misconduct; we further found that four candidates on the slate and one slate supporter made false protest allegations, gave false evidence to our investigator, or both.  We ordered a remedy to address both categories of Rules violations.  We noted, however, that the remedy we ordered was interim.  Because the decision issued with only five days remaining before ballots were to be tallied, 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.”

 

            With this reservation of further remedy, the decision rendered in ESD 104 fell within the ambit of Article XIII, Section 2(f)(2), which permits the Election Supervisor to “defer making a determination until after the election and thereby treat the matter as a post-election protest pursuant to Section 3 of this Article.”  Post-election protests “shall only be considered and remedied if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election.” 

 

           

            To apply this standard, the Election Supervisor “determines mathematically whether the effect was sufficient in scope to affect the outcome of the election and/or whether there was a causal connection between the violation and the result or outcome of the election.”  Platt, Post-1 (March 14, 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 96 EAM 144 (March 29, 1996).  However, “where the benefit conferred by a violation is significant, and the vote outcome is close,” the Election Supervisor “need not find a definitive causal link between the two.”  Ford, 95 EAM 46 (December 20, 1995).

 

            Once a prima facie showing has been made that the violation may have affected the outcome of the election, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent who committed the violation to prove by “tangible evidence” that there is no “reasonable possibility” that the violation actually did affect the outcome.  Wirtz v. Hotel Workers, Local 6, 391 U.S. 492, 508 (1968). 

 

In assessing the respondent’s evidence, “courts will neither perform an arithmetic tally of the precise number of members whose votes were in fact affected, nor accept proofs of the number of votes upon which there was a reasonably probable effect.”[1] Employee & Union Member Guide to Labor Law, §13.54, at 13-138.4 (West 2004) ) (“Member Guide”); see Donovan v. Local 719, UAW, 561 F. Supp. 54, 63 (N.D. Ill. 1982).  “Rather, it is the maximum theoretically possible effect of the violations which must be determined.” Member Guide at 13-138.4 - .5 and authorities cited in notes 2, 4.

 

In responding to a prima facie showing that the outcome may have been affected by a violation, the respondent “may not rely on conjectures concerning the possible or likely results in the absence of a violation.  [I]f it is impossible to decide the effects with certainty, then the outcome ‘may have been affected.’”  Evidence of how members actually voted is never accepted, because resort to such evidence compromises the secrecy of the ballot, and also causes the dispute to degenerate into swearing contests.  Id., at 13-138.5 - .6 and notes 6, 7.  

 

While a respondent may not permissibly rely on conjecture that the outcome was not affected, courts will allow the protestor or the Secretary of Labor to use conjecture that tends to show a material effect.  An example is the potential chilling effect on members beyond those who were directly affected by a violation.  Another example is the presumption that a campaign leaflet members were wrongfully prevented from receiving may have affected the vote of every member who did not receive it.  Yet another is the presumption “that voters who were not notified of a chance to exercise their rights would have exercised them had they been notified.” Id.

 

Application of these principles under LMRDA, §402(c)(2), produces a presumption, only in the rarest case rebuttable, that the violation affected the outcome of the election.  As one commenter put it:

 

[I]t is extremely rare for a court to find a violation but not require a new, supervised election on the ground that the outcome was not affected.  Only if the court believes that the violation was merely technical and negligible, that the Secretary has proceeded in a dilatory manner, or that it would be unfair to require a new election to be held, is it at all likely that the court will rule that the prima facie case has been rebutted.

Id., at 13-138.7 - .8 (footnotes omitted).

 

The Rules adopt by reference the election-related provisions of the LMRDA, and our precedents follow court decisions applying the “affect the outcome” analysis.  Thus, in Medina, 2010 ESD 29 (September 21, 2010), an election where the margin between winning and losing was 9 votes, we found that the local union’s failure to send replacement ballots to 9 members who requested them may have affected the outcome of the election.[2]  In DiPietro, 2001 EAD 324 (April 20, 2001), aff’d, 2001 EAM 62 (April 27, 2001), distribution of a campaign flyer that violated the Rules may have affected the outcome of the election, where the distribution was made to a target audience well in excess of the 102-vote margin in the election.  Similarly, in Scognamiglio, 2001 EAD 334 (May 1, 2001), aff’d, 2001 EAM 66 (May 16, 2001), the Election Administrator held that a Rules violation may have affected the outcome of the election, even though the margin separating winning from losing candidates was 314 votes, where material that violated the Rules was distributed broadly across the local union membership.  See also, Schultz, 2016 EAM 17 (April 25, 2016) (“reasonable probability that the violation … ‘may have affected the outcome of the election,’” warranting a rerun election, where the campaign violation potentially reached 645 members and the election was decided by 26 votes.).  In contrast, the election outcome was held not affected in Richards, 2001 EAM 63 (May 3, 2001), where the “underlying violation was found to be too marginal in weight and substance to have provided a basis for concluding that a landslide election victory may have been affected by the violation,” as quoted in Scognamiglio, 2001 EAM 66 (May 16, 2001), p. 5.  These precedents under the Rules in assessing whether violations “may have affected the outcome” are consistent with the Supreme Court’s analysis in Wirtz.  Thus:

 

The proviso was intended to free unions from the disruptive effect of a voided election unless there is a meaningful relation between a violation of the Act and results of a particular election. For example, if the Secretary's investigation revealed that 20 percent of the votes in an election had been tampered with, but that all officers had won by an 8-1 margin, the proviso should prevent upsetting the election.

            391 U.S. at 507.

 

Our decisions stand for the principle that where the violation is significant and the election is close, the violation may have affected the election outcome and the election must be rerun.

 

In the election under consideration in this case, twenty candidates, divided between two full slates, competed to fill ten convention delegate seats.  The tally of ballots, 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 Members for Members 542 slate members.  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 ESD 104, 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 entry, thereby preventing improper campaign access.  At others, they gained access and, once inside, campaigned where no preexisting right to campaign existed.  During the investigation, slate leader Derek Correia and member Craig Chappell admitted that they sought and obtained entry 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 ESD 104, combined with the admission that the same misconduct was committed pervasively, demonstrated 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.

 

            As noted, the decision in ESD 104 was not appealed.  Thus, it is final and binding with respect to its factual and legal determinations.  Article XIII, Section 2(j).  Despite this, the slate in its show cause response made two factual arguments that were contradicted by the findings in ESD 104.  It argued, first, that its members had no intention to violate the Rules, and second, that the violations were minor and isolated.  We address these points in the order they were presented.

 

            First, the Members for Members 542 slate is not comprised of “rookie” campaigners, as the slate argued in its show cause response.  Many of the candidates stood for local union office in the 2019 officers election, they campaigned vigorously in that election, and they appealed their loss in that election to the joint council and the U.S. Department of Labor.  The candidates before us on this protest are seasoned and experienced in union elections. 

 

            Second, they knew the Rules and, in particular, were told repeatedly – and knew – that they could not campaign on employer premises beyond the parking lot where members parked their cars.  They were told as much explicitly at the candidates meeting that immediately followed the nominations meeting held February 16, 2021.  OES representative Michael Miller addressed all candidates at that meeting, emphasizing to them that there was to be no campaigning on employer time, no campaigning on the clock, and that campaigning was limited to the parking lot where members parked their vehicles.  Miller stressed that there was to be a level playing field in the election, which would occur if candidates and their supporters adhered to those requirements.

 

            Third, Miller gave his phone number and email address to all candidates, instructing them to contact him at any time with questions regarding campaign rights.  No candidate on the Members for Members 542 slate contacted Miller for this purpose.  Miller and other OES representatives spoke with the candidates on that slate when investigating their protests, but none contacted him to ask about their campaign rights.

 

            Fourth, Correia was reminded of Miller’s warning about the limit to campaigning on employer premises – that it was permitted in parking lots where members park and nowhere else – on February 24, 2021, when he and others supporting the Members for Members 542 slate sought to campaign in the parking lot where retail customers of Costco parked.  A steward told them, “[Y]ou guys have the right to ask for votes, but you can’t come onto the premises.  You guys can do it over there [gesturing to where employees parked], but you can’t do it on the premises itself.”  Correia, Robinson & Sauceda, 2021 ESD 75 (March 9, 2021).  These instructions came two days after a Costco manager at another location told Correia, Sauceda, and others to leave the retail parking lot.  The manager’s words, recorded on a video Correia and Sauceda submitted in support of their protest, stated, “I’m telling you guys to leave. … I told you where you could go, and you know where you’re supposed to be.”  Id.

 

            Fifth, the Rules themselves, at Article VII, Section 12(d) (prohibiting campaigning on employer premises unless permitted by a preexisting right) and Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) (prohibiting use of an employer’s facilities to influence the election of a candidate) reinforce what Miller, the Costco steward, and the Costco manager told the Members for Members 542 slate candidates; that in the IBT International Officer election, campaigning on employer premises is limited to the parking lot where members park. 

 

            Against this backdrop, we reject the slate’s contention that its members and supporters lacked the intention to violate the Rules.  In reaching this conclusion, we first note that the slate’s response to the show cause order attempted to minimize its misconduct by arguing solely that its members had a right “to visit and inspect union bulletin boards, to verify that postings (in particular the nominated delegate candidates) were made on the union bulletin boards.”  Response to Show Cause, p. 1.  With this argument, the slate missed the point.  As we found in ESD 104, the excuse of “inspecting bulletin boards” was a ruse.  It was a work-around that slate members contrived to escape the Rules’ limitation that campaigning could occur only in the employer’s parking lot where members park.  Slate members, apparently dissatisfied with the impact their campaigning was making in parking lots, used the ruse to skip the lots and move inside employer premises in order to reach members directly where they worked.  It was the campaigning slate members did inside employer premises – locations that were forbidden to non-employees and which the campaigners accessed by claiming a right to inspect bulletin boards – that “may have affected the outcome of the election.”  Article XIII, Section 3(b); Wirtz, DiPietro, and Scognamiglio, supra. 

 

            The intention to use employer premises impermissibly to campaign was a theme the Members for Members 542 slate and its members used throughout the electoral period.  At Praxair, LBC Mundial, YRC Otay, and Reddaway, as noted in ESD 104, slate members inspected the bulletin board and placed campaign flyers in the breakroom or campaigned directly to members who were present.  Further, the “inspecting the bulletin board” ruse was repeated at “30 to 40” times (Correia’s estimate) or “well over 40” times (Chappell’s claim) at other sites.  In a campaign video Correia posted April 10, 2021, the day after ESD 104 issued, he explained to slate supporters what campaigners had done:

 

We were fined because we went into a breakroom to see if our delegate list was posted.  It’s supposed to be posted at every location.  And we found that it wasn’t being posted, so we went back to go check it out.  And they’re basically saying, no, you’re not allowed back there, ok?  And when we’d go to these places we’d say, “Hi, we’re member of Local 542, there’s an election, we want to go back there.”  This message is misconstrued, apparently, so these people that work these facilities, they just thought we were business agents.  But not once did we say that.  And, so, they allowed us to go back, and we noticed, a lot of times, it wasn’t there.  They basically charged us with going back there without having permission, which we did have permission.  But technically, you can’t go back there.  And that’s the funny part, right?  We want to see if these things are posted, but they’re not posted, how do you know if you can’t go back to see it, right? 

 

Correia described slate members’ modus operandi for gaining access to employer premises for an improper purpose.  Notably, he did not claim on the video that they used this ruse infrequently – only 10 times, as the show cause response stated.  Rather, Correia described it as the routine slate members followed.

 

            Also notably, Correia did not admit in the campaign video that slate members campaigned while inspecting the bulletin board, just as he and other slate members did not admit – and indeed expressly denied – to our investigator that they did so.  We found in ESD 104, however, that they passed out flyers and campaigned to members they encountered, some of whom were on employer-paid time, on their “inspection” forays, and left campaign flyers in breakrooms where members would find them.  It was this campaign activity, repeated inside worksite after worksite, that violated the Rules because no preexisting right existed to campaign there.  Such activity exposed members to the slate’s campaign message in a setting where the opposing slate did not campaign because to do so would violate the Rules.

 

            Candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate clearly knew that campaigning is not allowed on employer premises anywhere other than the parking lot where members parked their vehicles.  On February 25, 2021, they filed a protest claiming that local union employees campaigned “while members were on the clock and actually driving out of UPS property,” which they asserted was “a clear violation.”  We found that the employees in that case were not campaigning but instead were distributing a flyer introducing a local union app.  Correia, Sanchez, & Chappell, 2021 ESD 72 (March 5, 2021).  The allegation the protest made nonetheless demonstrated that candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate knew that campaigning to members on paid-time and in locations other than the employee parking lot violated the Rules.  This prior protest, ESD 72, reflects that Correia, Sanchez, and Chappell knew the Rules relevant here, and undercuts the argument that their violation was unintentional.

 

            The slate’s effort to minimize its misconduct by characterizing it as “inspecting the bulletin board” rather than campaigning inside the workplace extended further to its claim, in the show cause response, that slate members encountered “only several” Teamsters while inside.  Thus, it asserted that the number of members inside YRC Otay was 8 to 10, the number inside Reddaway was 16 to 18, and the number inside LBC Mundial was “only 1 potential Teamster.”  Even these numbers demonstrate that the campaign violations may have affected the outcome of the election.  Case law establishes that the presumption cannot be overcome by respondent’s conjecture that, because election turnout was light, the impact of the violation was equally minimal.  Instead, case law demonstrates that every member exposed to the improper conduct may have been affected by it.  The effect might take any of several forms.  Thus, it could be that a member intending to vote for the opposing slate was instead persuaded to vote for the campaigning slate, which would increase the campaigning slate’s vote by one while decreasing the opposing slate’s vote by one, producing an effect of 2 votes in the tally.  Or the improper conduct could have persuaded members who did not intend to vote instead to cast ballots for the campaigning slate, which would raise that slate’s total.  Or the improper conduct could have persuaded members who intended to vote for the opposing slate instead not to vote at all, which would have the effect of denying the opposing slate their votes.  The legal standard presumes such an effect, and the presumption cannot be overcome with an argument that members were not won over by the campaigning or that few members voted.  As such, even with the numbers of members to which respondent slate admits – 25 to 29 members – the election outcome may have been affected by the Rules violations found.

 

            The admissions by Members for Members 542 slate candidates that they entered a large number of employer workplaces – many more than the four investigated in ESD 104 – and the evidence that they routinely campaigned when inside such workspaces demonstrated that the impact of the Rules violation went well beyond those four worksites and was indeed pervasive, with many more than a couple dozen members being exposed to their campaign message as the result of the violation. 

 

            For these reasons, we find that the results of the election may have been affected by the Rules violations committed by the Members for Members 542 slate, and we cannot because of these violations certify the election.  When the election cannot be certified, the Election Supervisor “shall then immediately order that a rerun election be held.”  Article XIII, Section 6.  We so order.

 

The cost of the rerun election.

 

            We directed the Members for Members 542 slate to show cause why its members should not be required to pay the cost of the rerun election.  The cost to Local Union 542 of the just concluded delegates and alternate delegates election exceeded $29,000. 

 

The Rules violations of the Members for Members 542 slate – routinely gaining access to employer workplaces by lying about their intentions and then campaigning once inside – are the sole reason the election must be rerun.  Local Union 542 did not commit the violations.  Candidates who are officers or employees of the local union did not commit the violations.  Had either the union or the persons elected or employed to guard the assets of the union committed violations that disadvantaged candidates in the election, compelling reasons would exist to require the union to shoulder the cost of the rerun election.  The disadvantaged candidates in such a scenario would correctly argue that they were denied a fair election because of the union’s actions or the actions of its officers or employees.

 

We do not have that scenario here.  Rather, the union followed the Rules.  Likewise, its officers and employees, whether they were candidates or not, followed the Rules.  The Rules violations, carried out on a large scale across scores of employer worksites, were rank-and-file members who did not control the union apparatus.  Under these circumstances, it is grossly unfair that the union treasury must absorb the expense of rerunning an election, where the rerun is caused by the committed effort of candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate to violate the Rules.

 

Having said that, no provision of the Rules authorizes us to compel the candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate to pay the cost of the rerun election.  For this reason, and with great reluctance, we order that the expense of the rerun election be borne by local union members, through the union treasury.[3]

 

The question of disqualification.

 

Having concluded that the election will be rerun at the expense of the local union treasury, we turn now to the question of disqualification of some or all of the candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate. 

 

In the Order to Show Cause, we directed the slate to show cause why Correia, Chappell, Sauceda, and Sanchez should not be disqualified from rerun and, further, why the remaining candidates on the slate should not be disqualified as well. 

 

            In ESD 104, we found the following with respect to candidates Correia, Chappell, Sauceda, and Sanchez as well as supporter Eric Robinson:

 

We turn now to the documented history of false statements respondents made to gain entry to employer workspaces in violation of Article VII, Section 12(d), and the false allegations and false evidence respondents have made to the Election Supervisor.  False statements made to gain impermissible campaign access distort the playing field on which the election is contested.  False allegations and false statements to the Election Supervisor undermine the fair administration of the protest procedure and, by extension, the election, and they are unacceptable.  Article XIII, Section 2(g) establishes that false statements to the Election Supervisor constitute a failure to cooperate under the Rules, which “may result in referral of the matter to the Government for appropriate action under law” or “such other remedy as the Election Supervisor … deems appropriate.”  We have disqualified candidates who made false statements to us.  See, e.g., Richards, 2001 EAD 328 (April 26, 2001), aff’d in relevant part, 2001 EAM 63 (May 14, 2001) (disqualification of candidate affirmed because he “obstructed the investigation and gave conspicuously unbelievable and false statements in the course of his interviews by investigators”); Reyes, 2011 ESD 281 (June 18, 2011), aff’d, 2011 EAM 50 (June 18, 2011) (elected delegate disqualified in part because she gave “evasive and misleading evidence” to the Election Supervisor). 

 

We find that respondents made false statements to the Election Supervisor with respect to how they gained access to employer workspaces at Praxair, LBC Mundial, YRC Otay, and Reddaway.  In addition, as documented in Correia & Sauceda, 2021 ESD 97 (April 9, 2021), we find that the protestors there made a false allegation that the notice of nominations meeting results was not posted on the union bulletin board at LBC Mundial.  In Correia & Robinson, 2021 ESD 98 (April 9, 2021), we found that protestors there made a false allegation that the worksite list supplied to it by Local Union 542 had incorrect addresses on it.  In Correia & Chappell, 2021 ESD 99 (April 9, 2021), we found that protestors there falsely alleged that the employer barred them from campaigning in the employer parking lot where employees park their vehicles.  In Chappell & Correia, 2021 ESD 102 (April 9, 2021), we found that protestors falsely alleged that a Facebook page containing partisan posts was owned by the employer and that a union member who posted there was a supervisor.  In Sanchez, 2021 ESD 103 (April 9, 2021), we found that the protestor made an allegation of Rules violation he knew to be false.  We will not tolerate such conduct.

 

In Richards, 2001 EAD 328 (April 26, 2001), Election Administrator Wertheimer disqualified a candidate in a local union’s delegates and alternate delegates election, writing the following:

 

Disqualification should not be imposed lightly because ultimately it is undemocratic and interferes with the rights of members to nominate and elect their representatives.  However, disqualification is properly levied where, such as here, “persons have shown defiance for the processes established by the Consent Decree, such as by obstructing an investigation, disobeying a prior cease and desist order or engaging in repeated knowing violations.”  Hoffa, P770 (June 21, 1996), aff’d, 96 EAM 210 (July 11, 1996).  See also Cheatem, Post-27 (November 17, 1997), at p. 53 (“[T]he Election Officer may sometimes find punishment of candidates or their supporters appropriate to serve remedial purposes, when such actions are required in order to achieve a deterrent effect or to otherwise preserve the integrity of the electoral process.”)

 

Election Appeals Master Conboy affirmed the disqualification, 2001 EAM 63 (May 3, 2001), holding that “I am satisfied that the Election Administrator properly concluded that he obstructed the investigation and gave conspicuously unbelievable and false statements in the course of his interviews by investigators.” 

 

            We conclude it is appropriate to disqualify Correia, Chappell, Sauceda, and Sanchez from the rerun election for the following reasons.  Correia and Chappell have led other candidates and supporters into employer workspaces to campaign on such a repeated basis and with knowledge that they were not permitted there that the conduct demonstrates a fundamental disregard for the requirement that they adhere to election rules prohibiting use of employer workspaces to campaign.  All four candidates – Correia, Chappell, Sauceda, and Sanchez – have made false protest allegations, false statements in protest investigations, or both and in so doing have demonstrated a fundamental disrespect and abuse of the protest process.  Manipulating the protest process with false evidence does not promote a fair election and, in fact, undermines it.  See Reyes, 2011 ESD 281 (June 18, 2011). 

 

            We reject the slate’s argument in the show cause response that disqualification cannot follow unless a candidate has violated a cease and desist order.  Neither Section 2(g) nor Section 4 of Article XIII limits the Election Supervisor’s authority to disqualify a candidate to the situation where the candidate has previously been warned.  The obligation to cooperate with the Election Supervisor by telling the truth and not lying is fundamental to a fair process.  Here, the four named candidates knowingly violated that obligation in a series of protests and protest investigations.

 

Under these circumstances, Correia, Chappell, Sauceda, and Sanchez have forfeited their right to stand as candidates for election under the Rules, and we so hold.  They will not be permitted to have their names appear on the ballot in the rerun election.

 

            We do not extend disqualification to the remaining candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate.  We have not found that any of the remaining candidates engaged in the campaign violations we found in ESD 104.  None of the remaining candidates filed false protests or made false statements to our investigator.  Accordingly, the names of those candidates will appear on the ballot in the rerun election.

 

            To summarize:  we order Local Union 542 to rerun its delegates and alternate delegates election at the expense of the local union treasury.  We disqualify candidates Correia, Chappell, Sauceda, and Sanchez from that rerun election.  Finally, to inform the membership that the Rules have been violated and that candidates on the Members for Members 542 slate committed the violations, we order Local Union 542 to post on all union bulletin boards the notice attached to this decision.

 

            The rerun election will occur according to a schedule to be established by OES, in conjunction with the local union’s election vendor.  Once established, a notice of rerun election will be posted on all union bulletin boards.

 

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 109

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                     

     

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

Jaime Vasquez

jvasquez@teamsters542.org

 

Derek Correia

Dmcorreia13@aol.com

 

Craig Chappell

glamiscraig@gmail.com

 

Norman Sauceda

Pureflow7@gmail.com

 

Javier Sanchez

javstrz@gmail.com

 

Michael Miller

Miller.michael.j@verizon.net

 

Deborah Schaaf

dschaaf@ibtvote.org

 

Jeffrey Ellison

EllisonEsq@gmail.com