September 27, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Alvis Harrington
September 27, 1995
Page 1
Alvis Harrington 702 W. Lincoln Road El Centro, CA 92243
Franklin L. Gallegos, President Teamsters Local Union 890 207 N. Sanborn Road Salinas, CA 93905 |
| Crescencio Diaz Teamsters Local Union 890 207 N. Sanborn Road Salinas, CA 93905
Danny O. Urbano BUD of California 639 S. Sanborn Road Salinas, CA 93905 |
|
|
|
Alvis Harrington
September 27, 1995
Page 1
RE: Election Office Case No. P-165-LU-890-CSF
Gentlemen:
A protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-96 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules") by Alvis Harrington, a member of Local Union 890. The protester alleges that Local Union 890 President Franklin L. Gallegos and Business Representative Crecencio Diaz retaliated against him for filing a prior protest with the election officer and for his candidacy for delegate to the 1996 International Union Convention.
Specifically, the protester alleges that Local Union 890 officers retaliated against him when the local union failed to respond in a prompt manner to notifications from Mr. Harrington’s employer, Bud Antle, regarding the protester’s leave-of-absence status.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Mathew D. Ross.
The investigation revealed that pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between Bud Antel and the local union, the union has filed a grievance against the company on the underlying dispute precipitating Mr. Harrington’s complaint. The arbitration proceedings are pending. The Election Officer has determined to defer her decision in this matter until the conclusion of the grievance procedure pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.
Alvis Harrington
September 27, 1995
Page 1
The Election Officer has, pursuant to the Rules, jurisdiction and authority to determine the instant protest on its merits. Further, the Election Officer is not bound, in whole or in part, by the decision reached in the grievance proceedings or by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made during the grievance process. See Star Market, Case No. P-760-LU25-ENG, aff'd,
91-Elec.App.-187; aff'd United States v. IBT, 776 F.Supp. 144; aff'd, 954 F.2d 801 (2d Cir. 1992).
The Election Officer is also empowered to review the nature of representation provided by the local union with respect to the protester’s claim of retaliation. Thus, while the Election Officer will defer her decision in this matter, she has the authority to conduct an independent investigation of the allegations of the protest and issue a decision on the merits of the protest based upon her determination and evaluation of the evidence presented to her in such independent investigation. Mr. Harrington is advised to inform the Election Officer of the outcome of this matter following completion of the grievance procedure under the collective bargaining agreement.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator