March 5, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Stephan Siemzuch
March 5, 1996
Page 1
Stephan R. Siemzuch
5857 79th Street
Burbank, IL 60459
John McCormick, President
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
Gerald Zero, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
Walter Trakys
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
Stephan Siemzuch
March 5, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-358-LU705-CHI
Gentlemen:
Stephan F. Siemzuch, a member of Local Union 705, filed a protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Local Union 705 President John B. McCormick, Secretary-Treasurer Gerald Zero and Business Agent Walter Trakys. The protester alleges that by refusing him permission to attend the local union’s delegate nomination meeting, Local Union 705 retaliated and discriminated against him because of his support for James P. Hoffa and Bill Hogan, candidates for International office. The protester alleges that the local union permitted wives of members and members of the Local Union 726 Executive Board to attend the meeting, while it excluded him despite his membership in the local union. In addition, the protester alleges that while refusing him admission, Mr. Trakys “came up to me and pushed me in the chest.”
Stephan Siemzuch
March 5, 1996
Page 1
Local Union 705 responds that the protester is not a member in good standing due to a dues delinquency of over $800, and was therefore excluded pursuant to the local union’s policy of barring members not in good standing from attendance at general membership meetings. Additionally, the local union states that it excluded the protester because he was acting erratically and “was possibly” under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The local union claims that the unprecedented attendance at the meeting of approximately 800 members required enforcement of its policy requiring membership in good standing in order to attend the membership meeting. The local union denies knowledge of any wife of a member who was permitted to attend the meeting. Other than one Local Union 726 Executive Board member who came into the meeting to announce that a vehicle was blocking the fire lane, the local union is not aware of any attendees from the Local Union 726 Executive Board.
Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos investigated the protest.
Because of the large turnout for the Local Union 705 nomination meeting held January 21, 1996, Local Union 705 President McCormick instructed the local union warden and conductors to enforce the local union’s policy of excluding from a general membership meeting nonmembers, other than retirees, and members not in good standing. Local Union 705 Executive Board members advised the warden and conductors of certain members’ delinquencies, including that of the protester. At the time of this meeting it is undisputed that Mr. Siemzuch was delinquent in an amount that exceeded $800. Additionally, Walter Trakys, one of the conductors, observed that the protester was extremely agitated, and was behaving erratically, for example, spitting on himself and others. When the protester tried to enter the meeting, Mr. Trakys blocked his way and asked the protester to leave the meeting, which he did. Thereafter, the protester attempted to enter the meeting room and Mr. Trakys blocked his entrance by placing his hands against Mr. Siemzuch’s chest.
There is no evidence that the Local Union 705 Executive Board permitted wives of members or members of the Local Union 726 Executive Board to attend the meeting.
Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules provides:
Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.
However, an alleged violation of this section is sustainable only if there is some evidence that connects the protested conduct with a guaranteed right under the Rules. Hasegawa, P-318-LU174-PNW et seq. (February 5, 1996); Parisi, P-1095-LU294-PGH (December 2, 1991). The protester objects to his exclusion from the meeting on the asserted basis of his lack of good standing and his demeanor. However, he concedes that he was not in good standing at the time of the January 21 meeting.
Stephan Siemzuch
March 5, 1996
Page 1
Here, the local union has a reasonable basis for excluding members from the meeting which is not related to the delegate and International officer elections: the need to limit attendance and maintain order at the meeting. The Election Officer has previously noted that there have been multiple charges concerning disruptive conduct at Local Union 705 meetings. See Passo, et al., P-273-LU705-CHI, et seq. (February 22, 1996).
The Election Officer has stated that she will not find an internal union disciplinary decision to be retaliatory if there is a reasonable basis for the decision independent of election activity. Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995) (citing Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enforced, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989 (1982)). Here, the evidence shows that the decision to exclude Mr. Siemzuch from the meeting was based on efforts to reasonably regulate meeting attendance, not because of his support of the Hoffa/Hogan slate. Furthermore, in view of Mr. Siemzuch’s lack of good standing, he was not eligible to participate in the meeting as a nominator or seconder, or as a candidate for delegate or alternate. Rules, Article II, Section 5(e); Article VII, Section 1.
As to the actions of Mr. Trakys, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Trakys did not strike Mr. Siemzuch, but used his arms to stop him from entering the meeting room.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator