Protest Decisions

August 27, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Mary Strzezewski

440 E. Montrose #205

Wood Dale, IL 60191

Gerald Zero, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 705

1645 W. Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60612

Re:  Election Office Case No.              P-416-LU705-CHI

DECISION ON REMAND II

Gentlepersons:

This pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) on February 5, 1996 by Mary Strzezewski.  She alleged that she had been discharged from her employment at Local Union 705 in retaliation for her support for delegate candidates on the Hoffa/Hogan slate and for James P. Hoffa and William Hogan, candidates for International office. 

I.  The History and Current Status of the Protest

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer has previously rendered two separate decisions in this matter.  The first decision denied Ms. Strzezewski’s protest on the grounds that she failed “to demon-strate that her discharge was done because of her support for any candidate for International officer.”  Strzezewski, P-416-LU705-CHI (March 20, 1996).  This decision was appealed by the protester to the Election Appeals Master who remanded the case.  In his written opinion, the Election Appeals Master reminded the parties that an alleged termination due to political activity is “one of the more serious allegations under the Election Rules.”   He viewed the case as presenting an employee who was “abruptly terminated shortly after she engaged in open campaigning for James P. Hoffa.”  Consequently, the Election Appeals Master held that “a more definitive and focused investigation is required.”  In Re: Strzezewski, 96 - Elec. App. - 162 (KC) (April 8, 1996).

The Election Officer’s second decision denied the protest on the additional related ground that Local Union 705 had demonstrated an independent basis for Ms. Strzezewski’s termination.  Strzezewski, Decision on Remand, P-416-LU705-CHI (June 6, 1996).   The Election Appeals Master also remanded this decision to the Election Officer for further findings and conclu-sions.  In Re: Strzezewski, Supplemental Decision II, 96 - Elec. App. - 162 (KC) (June 25, 1996).

In his analysis of the Election Officer’s decision, the Election Appeals Master described the issue presented as follows:

In the instant matter, Ms. Strzezewski’s nineteen years of service with Local Union 705 [footnote omitted], the absence of any significant formal complaints or negative reviews regarding her performance, and the fact that the local union’s dissatisfaction with her work surfaced only after she began to actively support the Hoffa/Hogan slate, gives rise to a reasonable inference that the local union terminated her, at least in part, because of her protected political activity.  Thus, the focus of the inquiry must shift to an examination of the local union’s justification for firing Ms. Strzezewski. The question is whether the local union’s proffered reasons for Ms. Strzezewski’s discharge were valid or were merely a pretext designed to obfuscate an improper purpose.

The Election Appeals Master then listed the “three pieces of proof” which Local

Union 705 submitted in support of its position that “Ms. Strzezewski committed numerous errors” and was generally incompetent.  The Election Appeals Master described them as follows:

(1) A June 8, 1994 memorandum to the protester from her supervisor, Barbara Reynolds, “characterizing Ms. Strzezewski’s decision to send dues delinquency notices to striking members as improper, impractical, and costly.”

(2) A July 11, 1995 report of a meeting at which

“Ms. Strzezewski’s continued failure to issue withdrawal cards to three unemployed local union members was addressed.”

(3) A document, dated January 22, 1996, which reports that

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

Ms. Strzezewski criticized an employee for providing information to the Election Officer and ordering “the employee to answer only the Election Officer’s specific questions” and not to provide the Election Officer or the officers of the Local Union 705 any unsolicited information.

The Election Appeals Master held that the first two items of evidence, the June 8, 1994 memorandum and the July 11, 1995 report of the withdrawal card meeting, were remote in time from the date of her actual firing and did not contain any reference to her possible termination.  The Election Appeals Master therefore concluded that this evidence of “allegedly substandard performance, simply d[id] not substantiate the local union’s claims that she was consistently disruptive and uncooperative or that the local union had long been dissatisfied with her performance.”  In a footnote, the Election Appeals Master commented that the investigation contained no corroboration for Local Union 705’s claims that it began searching for Ms. Strzezewski’s replacement in the summer of 1995 and found a replacement in the fall of that year, but decided not to act until later to avoid terminating Ms. Strzezewski prior to the local union’s delegate election.  In another footnote, the Election Appeals Master “notes” that:

[a]lthough the local union asserts in its March 5, 1996 submission to the Election Officer that Ms. Strzezewski, in her capacity as supervisor of Local Union 705’s Dues Department, failed to promptly integrate new members into the local union’s membership dues system or to timely add new members to the local union’s roster, the local union did not proffer any documentary evidence in support of these claims.

The Election Appeals Master held that the local union’s claim “that Ms. Strzezewski ordered her subordinate not to cooperate with local union officials would provide a reasonable justification for her discharge.”  The Election Officer identified this document to the Election Appeals Master as the “only” documentary evidence upon which she relied to support her ultimate conclusions.  However, according to the Election Appeals Master’s opinion, the veracity of this event was not properly documented:

With regard to the local union, its failure to interview

Ms. Strzezewski or to obtain a signed statement from her subordinate at best suggests that the local union was not concerned with the merits of this matter and may have viewed it as convenient pretext to discharge Ms. Strzezewski.  As to the Election Officer, the basis for her decision to credit the local union over Ms. Strzezewski is unexplained.

The Election Appeals Master directed the Election Officer to proceed as follows:

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer is directed to interview the employee who Ms. Strzezewski allegedly admonished and to make any additional factual findings necessary to reach an informed decision as to the credibility of the local union’s claim in this regard.  The Election Officer is further directed to determine whether the local union’s apparent failure to offer

Ms. Strzezewski a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations that purportedly brought about her removal evinces a lack of good faith on the part of the local union.  Last, consistent with the Election Appeals Master’s order dated June 18, 1996, the Election Office is directed to redouble her efforts to obtain Barbara Reynolds’ formal response to Ms. Strzezewski’s assertion that Ms. Reynolds stated that Ms. Strzezewski was discharged for “political reasons.”

To comply with the directives of the Election Appeals Master, the Election Officer interviewed the employee who Ms. Strzezewski “allegedly admonished” and makes specific additional findings with respect to the incident.  The Election Officer was further able to obtain several additional statements from Ms. Reynolds and the protester.  This decision evaluates and considers those statements.  Finally, the Election Officer has reviewed the statements and documents which formed the structure for her prior decisions, including the statements of several additional witnesses and numerous additional documents.  She has further obtained and considered the entire contents of Ms. Strzezewski’s personnel file, which was finally disclosed in the investigation’s third phase.  She has considered all of these documents and statements in order to fully evaluate the independent grounds asserted by Local Union 705 to justify the protester’s termination and to determine whether or not these grounds are a pretext.

II.  Contentions of Local Union 705

Local Union 705’s position as described by Jo Pressler, its administrator at that time, has been that Ms. Strzezewski was terminated because of her “inability to satisfactorily perform her work responsibilities,” her “inability, or unwillingness” to carry out the policies of Local

Union 705 and a “necessarily disruptive and uncooperative” attitude. Local Union 705 ultimately produced a series of documents in support of the contention that Ms. Strzezewski, in her capacity as the supervisor of the Union Dues Department, had failed to properly maintain union records and further displayed an objectionable attitude toward her duties.

It is the position of Local Union 705, through the statements of Ms. Pressler, that the accuracy and prompt updating of the dues records is “of utmost importance and sensitivity” in the functioning of that organization.   Ms. Pressler states in her March 5, 1996 letter to the Election Officer that:

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

[t]he failure to enroll new members in a timely fashion led to their employers not remitting union dues as well as not receiving remittances for health and welfare and pension contributions.  The failure of the employer to make such remittances not only deprived employees of membership rights, but also prevented them and their families from becoming enrolled and eligible to receive health benefits . . . the failure to delete from the records the name of a member no longer employed by a particular employer could lead to the employer being found to be delinquent in its health and welfare or pension contribution . . . the failure to bill members of dues arrearages or issue withdrawal cards created numerous problems for the members as well as the functioning of the Local Union.  Members out of the trade for a period of longer than six months, without receiving withdrawal cards, result in inappropriate expectations in terms of membership participation.

John McCormick, Local Union 705 president, and two business agents, Don Barnett and Jesse Miranda, also gave statements.  Mr. McCormick stated that he interacted with the protester in 1994 and 1995 during attempts to improve Local Union 705’s dues-tracking system with respect to UPS, one of its major employers.  He enlisted Ms. Strzezewski’s assistance in solving two problems at UPS which, according to Local Union 705, had become a frequent problem--the sending of delinquency notices to members whose check-off had not been submitted timely and the failure to integrate new members into the system.  He visited UPS with the protester.  However, he states that no improvements to the system were made by her.  According to Mr. McCormick, the situation did not improve until after the protester’s replacement started work.   Mr. Barnett and Mr. Miranda stated that they complained “to Mary all the time” about delinquency notices sent to members who were not delinquent.  “That’s just the way it is,” was her response, according to Mr. Barnett.

Mr. Zero and Ms. Pressler state that, in addition to the meetings established in the documents submitted, they talked with the protester numerous other times about the problems Local Union 705 was experiencing with the dues-management system.  Local Union 705’s contention that Ms. Strzezewski was disruptive and uncooperative is based on what took place at such meetings and her failure to follow through by developing solutions for these continuing problems. 

Local Union 705 also contended that the search for Ms. Strezewski’s replacement began in the early summer of 1995 and that the protester would have been replaced earlier but for the difficulty of finding a suitable replacement.

III.  Evidence of Protected Activity

The investigation disclosed that Local Union 705 was placed in general trusteeship for the period beginning June 15, 1993 and ending in April of 1995, after completion of the local union officer elections.  The Independent Review Board had previously determined that six former officers of Local Union 705, the prior employers of Ms. Strzezewski, had engaged in “extensive and continuing financial fraud and malpractice.”  

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

The IBT installed Harold Burke as trustee.  Mr. Burke began to implement a series of reforms, including the reorganization of certain clerical procedures which were performed within Ms. Strzezewski’s area of responsibility.   The former union officers opposed not only their own removal from office, but further resisted the reforms proposed by Trustee Burke.  They organized themselves into a political opposition group which ultimately became known as the “Real Teamsters.”  One of the goals of this political group was to participate in the April 1995 local officer union election by fielding a slate of candidates. 

Ms. Strzezewski was an outspoken supporter of this group of former officers.  The candidates she supported were not successful in the local union officer election in April of 1995.  Some of these same former local union officers ran as candidates for delegate on the Hoffa/

Hogan slate in the International delegate election supervised by the Election Officer.  Several of those former officers and delegate candidates support Mr. Hoffa for general president. 

The names of two persons, Barbara Reynolds and John Krok, were initially provided by Ms. Strzezewski in support of her claim that she was terminated in retaliation for an election- related right.  Mr. Krok, she contended, would advise the Election Officer’s representative that he heard Ms. Reynolds state that she had been instructed to fire the protester and that

Ms. Reynolds believed that the protester had been discharged for political reasons. 

Ms. Strzezewski also maintained that Ms. Reynolds had told the protester that she was fired for political reasons.  She also submitted the names of four other witnesses who she claimed would support her protest--Danny Mousette, Bobby Hayes, Tom Malden and Bruce Paulis.

Ms. Reynolds stated that she had no actual knowledge of the reasons why

Ms. Strzezewski was discharged.  She never had any discussions with Mr. Zero, Mr. McCormick or Ms. Pressler prior to the protester’s termination.  Ms. Reynolds also stated that she never discussed the protester’s election activities with anyone and did not observe any campaign activity on the part of the protester.  She denies telling the protester that Mr. Zero was “trying to get rid” of Ms. Strzezewski and does not recall telling Mr. Krok that the protester was terminated because of her political activities.

Mr. Krok is a retired Local Union 705 business agent.  He offered the view that “she

[Ms. Strzezewski] was fired because she is a supporter of the Real Teamsters, and it is obvious that RPM [the opposition delegate slate] is ridding themselves of people not on their team.”  He also referred to a conversation he had with Ms. Reynolds at a private party, during which

Ms. Reynolds implied that Mr. Zero had ordered her to terminate the protester on several occasions.    He could produce no direct or indirect information concerning Ms. Strzezewski’s discharge.  He stated, “I can merely speculate about what happened.”

Danny Mousette, an employee of Joint Council 25, claimed to be the person who originally encouraged Ms. Strzezewski to file this protest.  His suggestion to her was based on information Mr. Mousette received from Bobby Hayes, a maintenance worker for the company which owns the building in which Local Union 705 rents office space.  According to

Mr. Mousette, Mr. Hayes stated that he overheard a conversation between two unidentified Local Union 705 business agents.  During this conversation, these business agents were alleged to have stated that the protester’s termination was based on her political activity.  When contacted by the investigator, however, Mr. Hayes stated that he did not know why the protester was terminated.

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

Tom Malden, a Local Union 705 business representative and Bruce Paulis, a Local

Union 705 cashier, were also interviewed.  Both stated that they had no information which could shed any light on the reasons or motivation for Ms. Strzezewski’s termination.  Mr. Paulis, however, did state that he never saw the protester actively campaign for any delegate or International officer candidate.  According to Mr. Paulis, Ms. Strzezewski did not wear campaign paraphernalia.  He also contradicted Mr. Krok’s statement that the new administration was “ridding themselves of people not on their team.”  Mr. Paulis pointed out that the protester’s sister and the brother-in-law of one of the deposed former officers were still working for Local Union 705.  “If you do your job, you got a job,” Mr. Paulis said.

While her participation in the local election was admitted to be both “vocal” and “outspoken,” no witness described Ms. Strzezewski’s participation in the delegate campaign or her support for Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy in similar terms.  Local Union 705 does acknowledge that the candidates which made up the “Real Teamsters” slate for local officers generally support

Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Hogan.   However, representatives of Local Union 705 claimed to have no direct knowledge that Ms. Strzezewski engaged in any noticeable campaigning in support of candidates for International positions.  Ms. Strzezewski herself admitted that she wore no campaign buttons or distributed literature for Mr. Hoffa or any other candidate for delegate or International office.  Ms. Strzezewski stated that she had attended rallies on her own time.  No other witness testified that Ms. Strzezewski actively campaigned for any delegate, slate of delegates or International candidate during her tenure as an employee of Local Union 705.

IV.  The Protester’s Work Performance

A.  Timely Integration of New Members

The following documents were examined by the Election Officer in relation to Local Union 705’s contention that Ms. Strzezewski was unable or unwilling to integrate new members into the computer system on a timely basis:

(1) A memorandum dated December 6, 1993 from business representative Bud Heim to the Trustee’s representative noting an “ongoing problem with putting new members into the system on a timely basis.”  A specific new member is mentioned.  Several requests of Ms. Strzezewski to place this member into the system were made.  The memo states that:

In the past, she has refused to comply with this simple request, which in the end, only harms the members . . . Due to [Ms. Strzezewski] refusing to change her “past practice” routine, Brother Simone is now looking at a 20% penalty under the medical plan.” 

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

Attachments to the memo indicate the names of several other members who were not added to the roster until four and five months after their start date. 

(2) Another memo from business representative Bud Heim to

Mr. Zero, dated June 29, 1994, indicating the late integration of additional members.

(3) A memo from Bud Heim, dated May 4, 1995, to Mr. Zero, complaining that two new members were entered into the computer system five and two months late, respectively.

B.  Improper Mailing of Dues Delinquency Notices

The following documents were examined with respect to Local Union 705’s contention that Ms. Strzezewski improperly sent out dues delinquency notices:

(1) A June 8, 1994 memorandum from her supervisor,

Ms. Reynolds, criticizing Ms. Strzezewski for sending out thousands of these delinquency notices to Local Union 705 members and trust fund participants involved in a Local Union 705 strike action when she was aware that the governing Board of Trustees had agreed to absorb the unremitted payments for the period of the strike.

(2) A November 8, 1994 memorandum from Local Union 705 Secretary-Treasurer Gerald Zero relating to a similar delinquency notice problem.  Specifically, the memorandum seeks information on the workings of the computerized delinquency billing system in an effort to remedy improper mailing of delinquency notices.

Ms. Strzezewski’s five-page response, dated December 5, 1994, is included with this document.

In her hand-written notes relating to the June 8, 1994 incident, Ms. Strzezewski admitted that in early April 1994, she was told that the employee benefit funds would “pick up” the payments for the strikers.  The protester’s notes further reflect that “without even thinking,” she sent out the delinquency notices despite this information because “they were always sent out” in the past.

C.  Inaccurate Dues Records

The following series of documents was examined by the Election Officer with respect to Local Union 705’s contention that Ms. Strzezewski did not accurately maintain dues records:

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

(1) A memo dated March 20, 1995 from Mr. Zero to several union representatives informing them of several groups of members who were delinquent in their dues and whose eligibility to vote in the local officer election might be in jeopardy.  Included is a “post-it” note from the protester indicating that, despite the inaccurate state of the records, there was, in fact, no delinquency for one of those groups.

(2) A memo dated March 22, 1995 from a union representative to Local Union 705 Administrator Jo Pressler concerning the inaccurate maintenance of dues records for city and county employees of Kankakee.  Specifically, the memo complains that members have been counted delinquent when their dues have, in fact, been paid.  The memo indicates the business agent’s intention to “speak to the Dues Department.”

(3) A memo dated March 24, 1995 to Mr. Zero from union representative Bud Heim dealing with the problem of dues delinquencies in connection with member eligibility to vote in the local officer election.  The memo discusses the fact that checks were sent several weeks before but have not been processed.  The memo also complains that Amerigas employees are not entered into the computer system on a timely basis.   It references a problem with two other employers, Amoco and Howard Delivery, reporting that new members are not “entered in our computer system on a timely basis” and an apparently unrelated problem with dues increases.

D.  Failure to Send Withdrawal Letters

The Election Officer examined the following documents with respect to Local

Union 705’s contention that Ms. Strzezewski failed to send out “six month withdrawal” letters:

(1) A memo dated December 5, 1994 from Ms. Strzezewski to

Mr. Zero referring to her knowledge of Local Union 705’s policy and the IBT Constitutional provision providing that members who are not employed in jurisdictional work for a period in excess of 6 months should be issued withdrawal cards.

(2) A memo from the protester to Mr. Zero, dated May 26, 1995,  requesting approval of a dues adjustment for a member who had not been employed within the union’s jurisdiction for a period of one year. 

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

(3)  A document dated May 31, 1995 is a memo from another union office employee, Katina Skoufis, establishing that this member, as well as several others, should not have been paying any union dues at all, but should have been issued withdrawal cards under the International Constitution, at Article XVIII, Section 6(a), due to their the failure to be employed.  The memo contains the statement that “Mary S. is aware that if there is no activity on a member for over 6 months they are to be suspended in the system.”  The memo also states:

Additionally, I think Arlene should run a program of all members on “lay-off” or “casual - 2999” status who have had no h&w or pension postings on their record for at least 6 months and have paid their dues.  There are a lot of loop-holes in this system and some people reap the benefits by being allowed to maintain their membership while others are suspended.

(4)  Mr. Zero answers Ms. Strzezewski’s May 26 memo in a document dated June 6, 1995.  The memo quotes the relevant constitutional provision to the protester and orders her to issue withdrawal cards to this and the several other members. 

(5) The report of the meeting of July 11, 1995, which expresses concern that, as of that date, Ms. Strzezewski had still not issued these withdrawal cards.  Pertinent parts of this memo are set forth below:

A meeting was scheduled to discuss the ongoing problem of allowing members who are unemployed in the jurisdiction of the Local Union for over six (6) months to continue to self-pay their dues in violation of the International Constitution.

[Paragraph noting that on May 26, 1995, the protester had requested authorization to lower

Mr. Taylor’s dues rate and that this member is subject to the “six months” provision of the Constitution.]

After further investigation, I notified Jerry that there were other members who are still self paying their dues in violation of the Constitution (see attach-ment #2), and, additionally, Mary S. is aware of this provision.

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

[Reference to Mr. Zero’s memo of June 6 directing the protester to issue the withdrawal cards and that none have been issued.]

In light of continued mishandling of union dues and continued violation of the International Constitution by Mary Strzezewski, who is the Supervisor of the Union Dues department and directly responsible for the proper maintenance of the members’ dues records this meeting was scheduled to rectify the situation.

(6) A computer printout, produced just prior to the meeting of   July 11, 1995, establishing that the three unemployed members referred to in the memo of June 6, 1995 had still not been issued withdrawal cards.

(7) A computer printout dated July 11, 1995 which shows members on sick list, lay-off and “casuals” who are suspected to have been unemployed for in excess of six months because no employee benefit contributions have been paid on their behalf for that period of time.  All of these persons were still being permitted to pay union dues.

The July 11, 1995 report specifically states that Mr. Zero, Ms. Pressler, Ms. Skoufis and Ms. Strzezewski were present for the meeting.  The remainder of the report discusses three specific examples of members who should have been issued withdrawal cards, but were not.

E.  Other Documents Relating to Work Performance

The Election Officer examined the following documents relating to other aspects of

Ms. Strzezewski’s work performance:

(1) A memo dated June 20, 1994 to the protester from Mr. Zero criticizing the “current procedure” for maintaining adequate levels of supplies and ordering that a new procedure be implemented and a memo from Ms. Reynolds indicating that she had discussed this

problem with the protester also.   The memo reports that Local Union 705 had run out of certain supplies.

(2) A memo dated November 16, 1994 from Mr. Zero warning  Ms. Strzezewski not to allow members in the computer room.

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

(3) A memorandum dated March 20, 1995 from Mr. Zero to the protester noting the possibility that certain local election candidate slates had improper access to the local union membership list and requesting certain information concerning how these lists are generated by the computer and who has the knowledge to print these lists.  Ms. Strzezewski’s response, dated the same day, is included.  This response gives the names of three employees who have access to these computer files, including the protester.

(4) A memorandum dated March 23, 1995 from Mr. Zero to the protester requesting additional information concerning the membership list problem and the protester’s response, also dated March 23, 1995.

(5) A letter of commendation from Dennis M. Sarsany, in his supervisory capacity, regarding the local union officer elections which occurred in April of 1995.

F.  Evaluations

Ms. Strzezewski contends that her supervisor, Barbara Reynolds, was satisfied with her work performance.  The investigation discloses that Ms. Reynolds was not the only person to whom the protester reported.  Ms. Strzezewski, at the time of her termination, held the job classification of “contribution manager” for the trust funds.  The investigation additionally disclosed that Ms. Strzezewski’s held the title of “supervisor” of the Union Dues Department.  On the trust fund side, her supervisor was Ms. Reynolds.  She reported to Mr. Zero on the “union dues” side.  Ms. Reynolds affirmed this in her statement to the Election Officer’s representative.  “I coordinated Mary’s work for the Fund side, the Union for the Union side,” she said.

In her affidavit, Ms. Reynolds stated that no evaluations of the protester were conducted concerning her work performance because managers were not formally evaluated by Local Union 705.[1]   Ms. Reynolds further stated that she had told Ms. Pressler that the protester “may not be supervisory material.”  She said:

We were going to be putting in a new computer system.  Mary was somewhat limited in new technology.  I was unsure at that time if she would be able to handle the new system of processing.  An outside firm was to conduct a management and personnel

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

review, and I had my doubts that Mary would qualify for the managerial role.[2]

V.  The Search for Ms. Strzezewski’s Replacement

The Election Officer examined six resumes received by Local Union 705 in connection with the claim that the search for Ms. Strzezewski’s replacement was begun far in advance of the date of her termination.  Local Union 705 states that all of these resumes were received in calendar year 1995.  The qualifications listed are consistent with the duties of

Ms. Strzezewski’s position.  One document is an actual application for employment dated April 27, 1995.  Another resume is dated as having been received December 7, 1995.  The other resumes were not dated.

Included in this collection is the resume submitted by the person who was ultimately chosen to replace the protester, Joan Somer.  In June or July of 1995, Ms. Somer was seeking employment in Chicago.  She telephoned a local labor attorney with whom she had worked for assistance and learned that a possible position was available at Local Union 705 as “supervisor of their dues system.”  Ms. Somer was also advised that Local Union 705 was changing its computer system and that the incumbent employee was apparently not capable of “making that switch.”  As a result of these contacts, Local Union 705 received Ms. Somer’s resume in October or November of 1995.  A short time later, she received a call from Ms. Pressler and arranged an interview, which took place between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays.  The position was offered and accepted a few weeks later and Ms. Somer began working on February 5, 1996.

VI.  The Memo of January 22, 1996

The January 22, 1996 memorandum concerns an event in which Ms. Strzezewski is alleged to have improperly admonished an employee for providing information to the Election Officer and further to have instructed that employee not to give out any unsolicited information to certain Local Union 705 officers and employees.  As to the requests of the Election Office for information, Ms. Strzezewski’s position was that she could not recall whether any such conversation took place.  She flatly denied that she ever instructed an employee not to give information to any Local Union 705 officers or employees. 

An affidavit was obtained from the employee Ms. Strzezewski allegedly criticized.  She recalled that in the month of January 1996, she received a call from the Election Office requesting information.  She was instructed by Ms. Pressler to “help them as much as you can, if you don’t mind.”  She further stated:

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

The lady would give me members’ names and I would look them up on the screen.  I did not keep a record. The next day I told Mary [Strzezewski] about it.  She said, “Do not give any information to Jo, Katina, Mr. Zero or McCormick or anyone else on that side.  If they want to know stuff, they should come to me - I am the supervisor.

The witness also reports that the protester was very interested in the names of the members about which the Election Office had inquired and asked the employee to keep records of them. 

An affidavit was also secured from Katina Skoufis.  The day of this incident,

Ms. Skoufis talked to the “admonished” employee in the elevator.  Ms. Skoufis’ statement confirms that the “admonished” employee repeated the same facts as those contained in her own statement.  Ms. Skoufis also stated that “she [Ms. Strzezewski] treats Gerry [Zero],

John [McCormick] and Jo [Pressler], as well as myself, like outsiders.”

VII.  Findings and Conclusions on the Allegation of Retaliatory Discharge

A.  The Applicable Rules

Ms. Strzezewski’s basic claim throughout these proceedings has been one which is controlled by the Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(f).  The principles which apply toward the resolution of such a claim are well-established and were comprehensively reviewed both in the Election Appeals Master’s Supplemental Decision II and Election Officer’s decision dated

June 6, 1996:

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules prohibits any retal­i­ation against anyone by the Union or its agents for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules.[3]  The Election Officer will not find retaliation if she concludes that the union officer or entity would have taken the same action, even in the absence of the protester’s protected conduct.  See Gilmartin, P-032-LU245-PNJ (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 75 (KC) (February 6, 1996); Leal, P-051-IBT-CSF (October 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec.     App. - 30 (KC) (October 30, 1995); Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995); Cf., Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enforced, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989 (1982).  The Election officer has found that “it is not a violation of the Rules to remove a member from an appointed position if there was a basis for doing so independent of the election process.”  Wsol, supra.

The Rules and these applicable principles require the establishment of three elements before any allegation of retaliation can be sustained:

(1) A showing that the protester was engaged in an activity protected by the Rules;

(2) A showing that the charged party had actual or constructive knowledge that the                    protester was so engaged; and

(3) The activity which is protected by the Rules was a motivating factor in causing the                    adverse action.

The Election Officer has repeatedly held that the existence of a reasonable independent basis for a discharge or removal from an appointed office defeats an allegation of improper motivation, so long as such basis does not form an excuse for or is a pretext for conduct or action which is actually in violation of the Rules.  No violation of the Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(f) can be sustained unless some evidence is presented or disclosed which expressly or inferentially connects the conduct which is alleged to be improper to an activity protected by the Rules.  Giacumbo, P-100-IBT-PNJ (October 13, 1995); Salucci, P-178-LU552-MOI (October 31,1995).

On the question of protected activity, the Election Officer does not detect a discernable difference in the manner in which Ms. Strzezewski was treated after she claimed to have commenced active support for Convention delegates and the Hoffa/Hogan slate.  In her

March 20 decision, the Election Officer ruled that the protester did not establish by sufficient evidence that her termination was due to support for any International candidate or officer.  The additional evidence that was elicited on this point confirms the Election Officer’s original decision.  All parties agree that Ms. Strzezewski was a “vocal” and “outspoken” supporter of the deposed former officers of Local Union 705.  There is no evidence showing that

Ms. Strzezewski directly engaged in campaign activity supporting candidates for delegate or for International office. 

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

A significant inference must be made in order to support the conclusion that the protester satisfies the element of known protected activity in this case.  The evidence is that Ms. Strzezewski was loyal to her former employers, the prior officers of Local Union 705.  It has been established that these former officers, as the “Real Teamsters,” opposed the trustee-ship’s reform efforts both in the local union officer election and the delegate election.  It has also been established that the “Real Teamsters” support Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Hogan in the pending International election.  Unless the inference can be drawn that loyalty to former officers who support a particular candidate is equal to direct support of that candidate,

Ms. Strzezewski’s vocal support for the “Real Teamsters” does not automatically translate into support for delegates or candidates for International office, the only type of activity the Rules protect.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Election Officer finds that Local Union 705’s knowledge of Ms. Strezewski’s longstanding support of the former leadership--who had both formed a rival delegate slate and supported Mr. Hoffa--is sufficient to require further analysis of this retaliation claim.

B.  Existence of an Independent, Non-Retaliatory Basis for Termination

That part of the investigation conducted subsequent to the Election Officer’s June 6, 1996 decision produced, for the first time, the complete contents of Local Union 705’s files regarding the protester’s work performance.  Rather than establish a tenure without “significant formal complaints,” the record discloses a series of complaints of a significant nature.  The evidence further establishes that these complaints began as far back as 1993, and did not begin contemporaneously with activities surrounding the delegate or International officer election at Local Union 705.

There is persuasive evidence that the failure of Ms. Strzezewski to integrate new members into the computer system on a regular and timely basis was a continuing problem.  The two memorandums dated December 6, 1993 refer to an “ongoing problem with putting new members into the system on a timely basis.”  The author of the first memo specifically points to Ms. Strzezewski’s failure to comply with the plea to update the computer system and cites her further refusal to change her “past practice” routine.  The memos of June 29, 1994 and May 4, 1995 indicate that, even after the passage of a significant period of time at Local Union 705, the problem persisted.

Ms. Strzezewski stated to the investigator that she did not integrate new members into the system unless and until she received some type of signal from the employer, either in the form of an initiation payment, a health and welfare or pension contribution or a dues payment on the new member’s behalf.  This procedure, however, was problematic for Local Union 705 and its associated employee benefit funds.  Not all employers can be depended upon to do what they are supposed to do--that is to properly deduct these various payments and forward them to the union or the trust funds in the form of employee benefit contributions in the month in which the new employee began work.  According to Local Union 705,  a system which was not dependent on the employer was called for, one which would place new members into the computer when the dues deduction authorization was received.  The memo of May 4, 1995 indicates that as of that date, this was a continuing problem. 

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

When the memos from Mr. Heim were shown to her, the protester’s first response was to ask why they had not been produced earlier.  She admitted that Mr. Heim had complained to her about the problem of integrating new members and offered the opinion that these memos were “probably doctored.”

The sending of improper dues delinquency notices is referred to in two memos, dated June 8, 1994 and November 8, 1994.  The June 8, 1994 incident documented by

Ms. Reynolds necessitated the preparation and mailing of literally thousands of improper notices in direct disregard of Mr. Zero’s specific order.  Ms. Strzezewski, however, took the position that the disciplinary memo she received in the wake of this event was not deserved.  Rather, she stated her belief that her supervisor, Ms. Reynolds, had issued the June 8, 1994 disciplinary memo to her not because she thought the protester’s work performance had been deficient, but for the sole reason that Mr. Zero had required that the memo be issued.  In her view, the improper mailing of delinquency notices to the then-striking members of Local

Union 705, which required the further effort of preparing and mailing a letter to those same members instructing them to disregard the notice, was not a serious error. The protester maintains that “office procedure” required the sending out of dues delinquency notices, a regimen which she did not take sufficient steps to modify despite repeated complaints.   

The fact that the memo of November 8, 1994 was written by Mr. Zero indicates that six months later the problem was still not remedied.   In that memo, Mr. Zero asks specific questions about the computer system in an effort to understand the reason why the sending of improper delinquency notices was still occurring.  When asked why she thought Mr. Zero sent her the memo, Ms. Strzezewski responded that “they were looking to get rid of me.” 

Ms. Reynolds does not support the protester’s contention that the memo of June 8, 1994 was undeserved.  Ms. Reynolds states that the protester’s action was a breach of policy, that “[I]t was a matter of common sense not to send notices to strikers,” and “as a manager, Mary should have stopped and thought about it.”  Ms. Reynolds further stated that the disciplinary memo was not written by order of Mr. Zero.

Seven different memos relate to the protester’s continued failure to send members withdrawal cards in accordance with, and at times required by, the IBT Constitution.  On the subject of “six month withdrawal letters,” the protester initially insisted that it was not her responsibility to track them.  Instead, she blamed the continuing problem on the window cashiers for failing to correctly decipher the computer records.  She stated, “It was their fault - they can’t read the computer.”  In a subsequent interview, the protester stated that, with respect to UPS, it was her responsibility to prepare lists of terminated employees to initiate the process for issuing withdrawal cards on a timely basis.

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

The evidence establishes that the sending of members’ withdrawal cards was part of her duties for Local Union 705.  The dual nature of Ms. Strzezewski’s employment in terms of her two supervisors and duties has been referred to previously.  The “Position Information Questionaire” completed by Ms. Strzezewski on October 26, 1995, encompasses this mix of job tasks.  On the “fund” side, the protester lists such items as the monthly posting of all health and welfare and pension contributions, the running of daily eligibility for medical claims, creating employer pre-lists to bill for contributions and sending out “medical kits and “ID” cards.  On the “union” side,  Ms. Strzezewski lists as part of her duties the posting of dues, the processing of delinquent dues receipts, the sending out of dues refunds, the mailing out of dues delinquency notices, the creation and maintenance of member “work records,” adjusting “any member’s record that does not read properly” and running “micro-film on a mbr’s [sic] record to see if they took a withdrawal, transfer etc.”  

The investigation discloses that the tracking of the good-standing status of members is a Dues Department function at Local Union 705.  Ms. Strzezewski drafted a memorandum dated December 5, 1994 in which she responded to a certain question concerning how members who did not appear to have worked within the jurisdiction of Local Union 705 for a period in excess of six months could be more accurately traced.[4]  Specifically, Ms. Strzezewski was asked for her “ideas” with respect to how these members could be more accurately identified and how letters notifying them of their status could be more efficiently prepared and mailed.  Ms. Strzezewski responded, in pertinent part, in this memo, under the heading “The Best Solution to the Problem,” as follows:

Also need to watch w[h]ere dues payments are coming from, an employer or self-payments.  Six months of self-payments are only allowed, unless on sick list or workman’s comp.

The memo dated December 5, 1994 establishes that Ms. Strzezewski was well aware of the necessity to send out these withdrawal notices and Local Union 705’s policy to do so. 

Ms. Skoufis’ memo of May 31, 1995 confirms Ms. Strzezewski’s awareness and notes the continued existence of circumstances inconsistent with the policy.  In his memo of June 6, 1995, Mr. Zero directly orders the protester to send out these withdrawal cards, yet the three memos of July 11 demonstrate that five weeks later the task had still not been accomplished. 

The protester’s position that she was not, except in the case of UPS, responsible for the withdrawal card problem is not consistent with the evidence.  Ms. Strzezewski was the super-visor of the Union Dues Department.  Her “Position Information Questionaire” expressly states that it is her responsibility to maintain member work records and to adjust any member’s record that “does not read” properly.  She was expressly asked her view as to how this problem could be corrected and responded in her memo of December 5, 1994 with reference to the need for better management of the withdrawal card system.  This interaction indicates that the withdrawal card issue was within her range of duties.

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

On the basis of Ms. Strzezewski’s “Position Information Questionaire” and these memoranda, the Election Officer finds that Ms. Strzezewski supervised the function of tracking the good-standing status of Local Union 705 members as well as the issuance of honorable withdrawal cards to all those members who were not employed within the jurisdiction of Local Union 705 for a period in excess of six months.  The Election Officer finds that it was reasonable for Local Union 705 to conclude that her failure to assist in this regard was inappropriate and in dereliction of her duties. 

Based on the evidence, the Election Officer determines that Local Union 705 reasonably believed that Ms. Strzezewski, as manager of the Union Dues Department, had failed to adequately perform, oversee and control these various functions, including the failure to timely integrate new members, the failure to track withdrawals, the sending out of improper delinquency notices and the inaccurate maintenance of union dues records.

In this regard, the Election Officer notes that an employer need not find fault with every task assigned to an employee in order to reasonably conclude that the employee is not the proper person for the job.  It may be that Ms. Strzezewski performed many of her duties competently.  The protester presented evidence that she attempted to “clean up” the records of a number of seriously delinquent members and was frustrated when she could not get what she considered to be sufficient direction from Mr. Zero.  However, the picture that emerges from the evidence indicates significant areas of dissatisfaction by the local union which continued over a long period of time.  On this basis, the evidence substantiates an independent, non-election-related basis for her termination.

C.  The Search for Ms. Strzezewski’s Replacement

The Election Officer concludes that Local Union 705 had decided to replace

Ms. Strzezewski by late April 1995, almost 10 months prior to her termination and approximately 12 months prior to the delegate election.  The first resume submitted for the position is dated April 27, 1995 and other resumes were collected over the next several months, prior to the job offer to Ms. Somer.

The investigation also reflects that Ms. Somer accepted the position a few weeks after the Christmas holidays and that Local Union 705 acknowledges that Ms. Somer accepted its offer of employment prior to the events reflected in the January 22 memo which concerned the improper interaction with the “admonished” employee.

D.  The January 22, 1996 Incident

The memo of January 22, 1996 describes an event which allegedly occurred between Ms. Strzezewski and another employee in her department.[5]  The protester is alleged to have “admonished” the employee for providing information to Local Union 705 officers and

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

employees as well as the Election Officer.  It is Ms. Strzezewski’s position that she never cautioned any employee on this basis. 

The Election Appeals Master, noted that this event, in and of itself, could potentially constitute a proper justification for the protester’s discharge.  He ruled, however, that the incident was not properly investigated and verified.  Prior to the June 6 decision of the Election Officer, the Local Union 705 administrator had characterized this event as the “straw that broke the camel’s back” with respect to the decision to discharge the protester.  Further investigation disclosed that Ms. Somers was offered, and did accept her current position as Ms. Strzezewski’s replacement at Local Union 705 prior to this event taking place.  The fact that the event took place after the hiring of Ms. Somers establishes that it was not the “straw that broke the camel’s back” as originally contended by Local Union 705.  Thus, this parti-cular event is no longer relevant to an inquiry into the justification for the protester’s discharge.  However, the Election Officer resolves this issue in order to satisfy the directive of the Election Appeals Master, made before the receipt of the additional evidence on the replacement issue. 

The Election Officer credits the statement of the “admonished” employee and finds that Ms. Strzezewski warned her not to “give any information to Jo [Pressler], Katina [Skoufis], Mr. Zero or Mr. McCormick.”  The Election Officer also finds that the protester told the employee that, as her supervisor, the protester should be the only person to give information to these union officers and employees.  The Election Officer did not perceive that the admonished employee had any reason to fabricate this event.  Her account was corroborated by the affidavit of Ms. Skoufis.

E.  Pretext

The Election Appeals Master identified three factors which, if present, would provide evidence that Local Union 705’s proffered independent basis for Ms. Strzezewski’s discharge was a pretext for an improper motivation under the Rules. 

The first factor is the timing of the discharge and the events which preceded it.  Many of the documents which criticize the protester’s inaccurate maintenance of union dues records are dated immediately before or just after the election for local union officers. 

Ms. Strzezewski has taken the position that the proximity of the issuance of these documents to the local election demonstrate that the deficiencies noted are instead a pretext for activity protected by the Rules.  She maintains a similar position with respect to the fact that her termination took place about seven weeks before Local Union 705’s delegate election occurring in March 1996.

But the timing of Local Union 705’s actions with respect to Ms. Strzezewski cannot give rise to an inference of pretext in the context of the documented evidence submitted here.  Local Union 705 had special impetus to firmly and accurately establish the eligibility of its members to vote prior to the local officer elections.  Certainly, Local Union 705’s scrutiny of

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

the protester’s activity with respect to her ability to accurately maintain dues records at this time was not in any sense extraordinary, given the pendency of the local officer election.[6]

Further, the record sufficiently demonstrates that dues record inaccuracies was one of several deficiencies in the protester’s work performance, beginning at least 18 months prior to the local union officer election.  Disapproval of the inaccurate dues records was immediately followed in May and June of 1995 by a series of memos relating to the failure to issue timely withdrawal cards, an issue which began to surface as early as December 1994. 

The date of the protester’s actual termination also fails to provide a basis for inferring the existence of an improper pretext.  The record adequately demonstrates that Local

Union 705 was interested in replacing Ms. Strzezewski as early as April 1995, when it began searching for her replacement.

Given these findings and conclusions, the Election Officer determines that the timing of Local Union 705’s activities with respect to Ms. Strzezewski’s work performance does not provide a basis to decide that the proffered independent basis was a mere pretext for an improper motivation under the Rules.

The second factor which might provide a basis for a finding of pretext involves the question of work performance evaluations.  The Election Appeals Master commented in his Supplemental Decision II that there was no showing that Ms. Strzezewski had been “negatively” reviewed.  The protester herself has contended that the reasons given for her discharge were a pretext due to an absence of any evaluations critical of her work perfor-mance.  She contended that reasons given by Local Union 705 to justify her discharge are belied by positive evaluations she received from Ms. Reynolds.  The protester further contends that her satisfactory work performance is established because she received regular salary increases.   In a related contention, she stated that she was a supervisor in name only and that, in reality, she had no such authority.

However, the testimony of three witnesses, including Ms. Reynolds, a witness submitted by the protester, was consistent on this point.  Ms. Strzezewski was the “manager” of the Union Dues Department.  It was not the practice of Local Union 705 to make any evaluations of its managers at all.  Therefore, the absence of evaluations, either positive or negative, cannot serve as a basis to support the conclusion that the reasons offered by Local Union 705 as a justification for Ms. Strzezewski’s termination was a pretext.

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

The fact that Ms. Strzezewski was never formally evaluated has also been considered as possible evidence of pretext.  But this practice, at least with regard to Ms. Strzezewski, goes back many years before the current administration.  However imperfect, this personnel practice cannot be evidence of retaliation in light of the uniformity of its application and the length of time it has existed.  In any event, the Election Officer notes that, taken as a whole, the file of documents presented on Ms. Strzezewski could reasonably be construed as a “negative” evaluation of her work performance in that they show consistent problems with performance over a long period of  time.

Nor can Ms. Strzezewski’s contention that she received regular salary increases during her tenure as an employee constitute evidence of pretext.  The protester’s personnel file included the protester’s payroll history for the period beginning 1992, as well as histories of other employees in her department.  This payroll history shows that Ms. Strzezewski received two pay increases since the implementation of the trusteeship.  The first is dated June 6, 1994.  Ms. Reynolds stated that the majority of this increase was an adjustment resulting from a transfer from hourly basis to salary basis, with only a small increase for merit.  She stated:

I wanted to change the structure from hourly pay to salary to eliminate overtime, consistent with that of our other manager.  There was an increase for Mary built in to account for what she had earned historically for overtime, balanced by a small merit increase.

The second increase, dated February 1, 1995, raised Ms. Strzezewski’s wages in the amount of six percent.  A similar increase was granted to every employee in the department, except one, who received a larger percentage increase.

Finally, the Election Officer determines whether the “local union’s apparent failure to offer Ms. Strzezewski a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations that purportedly brought about her removal evinces a lack of good faith on the part of the local union.”  In Re: Strzezewski, Supplemental Decision II, supra.  It is Ms. Strzezewski contention that no one in authority ever told her that she did anything wrong and that she was never formally warned that her work performance was inadequate.  She told the Election Officer’s representative that if there was a problem, she should have been told about it.  “No way was it my responsibility to go in to them,” she stated.  “If they’re saying there were numerous meetings with me to discuss their problems with me, that’s just plain wrong.  It’s their word against mine,” she added.

According to Local Union 705, Ms. Strzezewski was not deprived of opportunities to

respond to the various allegations of poor work performance.  Mr. Zero states that

Ms. Strzezewski was notified of the problems on “numerous” occasions and had chances to discuss them.

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

It is certainly true that progressive discipline and corrective action are generally regarded as sound personnel management practice.  But the failure to utilize such a procedure in the context of a discharge does not automatically call for the conclusion that an improper motive is involved.  This is especially true when the discharge is challenged under the Rules because the range of potential impropriety must, necessarily, be limited to actions which are demonstrably linked to an election-related right. 

The record in this case shows the officers of Local Union 705 did not follow-up each and every objection or complaint they had received with respect to the protester’s work performance with notice to her and with remedial action.  Nor is there any contention or evidence that Local Union 705 explicitly warned the protester that her failure to improve on those various deficiencies, which it now claims formed the basis for their action, would result in her termination.

In this case, the Election Officer is persuaded that these facts do not disclose a basis for concluding that Local Union 705’s actions were in bad faith or were a pretext for an improper motivation.  The documents disclosed by the investigation persuade the Election Officer that Ms. Strzezewski was aware of the objections to her work and that she had been given opportunities to discuss these complaints with her employer.  Ms. Strzezewski was criticized for not sending out dues delinquency notices on June 8, 1994.  According to Ms. Reynolds, the protester had knowledge of this policy.  Ms. Strzezewski had complaints from business agents about improper delinquency notices and record-keeping.  She acknowl-edges that Mr. Heim complained to her about the failure to integrate new members into the computer system.  The protester’s own memorandum of December 5, 1994 indicates her awareness of the six-month suspension requirement.  This knowledge is confirmed in the memorandum of May 26, 1995, containing Ms. Skoufis’ statement that “Mary S. is aware” of this obligation.  One of the memos dated July 11, 1995 indicates that the protester was present for a discussion which concerned her “continued mishandling of union dues.”

Local Union 705 was inconsistent in its attempts to bring these various problems to the attention of the protester.  However, there is substantial evidence in this record showing that Ms. Strzezewski was, in fact, told of the dissatisfaction with which Local Union 705 regarded aspects of her work performance.  There is also ample evidence that these were good-faith concerns which extended over a long period of time, regardless of whether these problems were consistently expressed to the protester.

In addition, it is significant that Ms. Strzezewski was a management employee.  The protester herself had power to direct the activities of other employees.  Under such circum-stances, certain deficiencies may not lend themselves to discipline or corrective action.  The record contains evidence that Ms. Reynolds expressed doubts as to Ms. Strzezewski’s ability to perform as a supervisor.  She stated that, although it was her personal belief that the situation could have been handled better, the protester was not, in her view, “supervisory material.”  When an employer does not have confidence that a supervisory employee possesses a proper overview of her job requirements, or lacks sufficient initiative to anticipate and solve problems related to the position, a serious problem may result.  An employer in such a position need not be required to point out, error by error, the supervisory employee’s failure to perform.  Rather, the employer is entitled to seek a different employee, one more compatible for the duties it requires be performed. 

Mary Strzezewski

August 27, 1996

Page 1

Based on the record, the Election Officer concludes that the failure of Local Union 705 to give the protester an opportunity to respond to all of the perceived deficiencies in her performance does not suggest that they were acting in bad faith.

VIII.  Conclusion

Having determined that the discharge of Ms. Strzezewski was supported by a valid independent basis, and having further determined that there is no evidence demonstrating that the independent basis was a pretext designed to “obfuscate an improper purpose,” the Election Officer concludes that the Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(f), were not violated in connection with the protester’s termination.

The protest is therefore 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 Hamos, Regional Coordinator