Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: GREG EDENS,                               )           Protest Decision 2021 ESD 113

                                                                       )           Issued: May 12, 2021

Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-133-040921-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 impermissible use of employer resources to campaign.

Election Supervisor representative Joe Childers investigated this protest. 

Findings of Fact and Analysis

Local Union 710 elected 17 delegates and 10 alternate delegates to the IBT convention.  Three full slates competed in the election:  the Cales/Schaefer 710 Members First slate; the 710 Teamsters United for OZ slate; and the 710 Teamsters United.com slate.  Ballots were mailed March 23, 2021 and were counted April 30, 2021.

Protestor Edens was a candidate on the Teamsters United for OZ slate.  The protest alleged that campaign material promoting the 710 Teamsters United.com slate was distributed inside trucks at a UPS distribution center in Hammond IN.  Such distribution, if proven, may violate Article VII, Section 12(d) and Article XI, Section 1(b)(3) (prohibiting use of employer resources to campaign).

Donny Richardson, a package car driver assigned to the Hammond facility, told our investigator that he when he reported for work on Tuesday morning, April 14, 2021, he found a 4”x6” postcard promoting the 710 Teamsters United.com slate propped in the DIAD[1] cradle next to the steering wheel of his assigned truck.  He said he inspected 3 to 4 other trucks and found the same type of campaign card in the DIAD cradles of those trucks.  He also observed the card thumbtacked to a cork bulletin board on which UPS management posts job assignments.  Richardson took a photo of the card in his assigned truck.  He also photographed the card affixed to the bulletin board.  He did not photograph the cards in the other trucks.  He told our investigator he removed the postcard he found on the bulletin board.  Richardson was a supporter of the Edens’ slate.  He reported his observations to Edens, and this protest followed. 

Brian Paulson, lead candidate on the 710 Teamsters United.com slate, told our investigator that, on the morning of April 14, supporters of his slate campaigned in the employer parking lot at the Hammond facility where employees park their vehicles.  He was not present for that campaigning.  Paulson said he had trained candidates on the slate and their supporters as to campaigning that was permissible under the Rules, and they were instructed to limit their activity to the parking lot and not to campaign inside employer facilities.

Anecia “Reese” Ventura, a member of the 710 Teamsters United.com slate, campaigned for the slate at Hammond that morning.  She also works at the facility.  She confirmed that Paulson had trained slate supporters on permissible campaigning.  She had campaigned in previous elections and said she knew that campaigning was limited to the parking lot, a principle Paulson reinforced with campaigners.  She said she and the other campaigners honored that limitation, handing out postcards in the parking lot, although many rank-and-file members to whom they campaigned carried the individual postcards they received into the hub.

Melissa Briones, another member of the 710 Teamsters United.com slate who works at the Hammond hub, told our investigator that she campaigned in the parking lot with Ventura.  Like Ventura, Briones said she did not take campaign postcards inside the hub.  She also stated that she did not see the cards inside the hub or hear that they had been placed in DIAD cradles or tacked to the bulletin board.

Aside from Richardson, no other person reported seeing the campaign postcards anywhere inside the hub, including on the bulletin board, in DIAD cradles, or otherwise in trucks or package cars.  Two witnesses to whom Richardson referred our investigator did not return phone calls.

As noted above, use of employer assets, including a management bulletin board and UPS trucks, to campaign may violate the Rules provisions prohibiting use of employer resources for that purpose.  Here, however, we find no violation for two reasons.  First, the uncontradicted evidence is that the campaigners for the 710 Teamsters United.com slate limited their campaign activity to the parking lot, where they had the right under Article VII, Section 12(e) to campaign.  No evidence demonstrates that those campaigners carried material into the UPS hub, generally, placed it in UPS trucks, or posted it on a UPS bulletin board in particular.  The postcards distributed were offered to individuals as campaign material, and were not in a form (e.g. a sticker) that implies the recipient could (improperly) post the material in the workplace.  For this reason, we find that the parking lot campaigners did not violate Article VII, Section 12(d) by entering the facility to campaign where no preexisting right to campaign existed.

On the question of whether the 710 Teamsters United.com slate may have received an involuntary employer contribution to their campaign in violation of Article XI, Section 1(b)(3) because one campaign card was briefly seen on the employer’s bulletin board and 4 to 5 additional cards rested briefly in DIAD cradles of employer trucks, we deferred this allegation for post-election consideration pursuant to authority granted us by Article XIII, Section 2(f)(2).  Protests deferred for post-election decision generally are considered and remedied only “if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election.”  Article XIII, Section 3(b).

The delegates and alternate delegates election was won by the Cales/Schaefer 710 Members First slate, which was not involved in this protest.  The 17 delegate candidates on that slate polled an average of 1,589 votes each.  The delegate candidates on the 710 Teamsters United for OZ slate, of which the protestor was a member, averaged 536 votes, more than a 1,000 fewer than the winning candidates.  Trailing these two slates was the 710 Teamsters United.com slate, whose campaign material is the subject of this protest.  Its delegate candidates tallied an average of 233 votes.  In assessing whether a Rules violation may have affected the outcome of the election, we look to whether the violation is significant, and the election is close.  Here, we find neither.  The alleged violation may have affected a handful of voters before it was promptly remedied with the removal of the campaign material.  Moreover, the slate that stood to benefit from the material finished third by a large margin.  Given the overwhelming margin by which the Cales/Schaefer slate won the election over the other two slates, we find no basis for concluding that the violation alleged here may have affected the election’s outcome.

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 113

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

Bradley Showalter

la.famigliacanecorso@gmail.com

Tom Bulak

Taboo1968.tb@gmail.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

Joe Childers

jchilders@ibtvote.org

William Broberg

wbroberg@ibtvote.org

Jeffrey Ellison

EllisonEsq@gmail.com