Protest Decisions

              April 1, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Richard Vigil

1265 Westgate Avenue #6

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Randy Cammack, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 63

379 W. Valley Boulevard

Rialto, CA 92376

Re:  Election Office Case Nos.              P-595-LU63-CLA

P-611-LU63-CLA

Gentlemen:

These pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Richard Vigil, a member of Local Union 63 and independent candidate for delegate.  In P-595-

LU63-CLA, Mr. Vigil alleges that Local Union 63 Secretary-Treasurer Randy Cammack, who heads the Cammack-Molina Delegates for Carey slate, improperly interfered with Mr. Vigil’s receipt of vacation pay in retaliation for Mr. Vigil’s candidacy.  In P-611-LU63-CLA,

Mr. Vigil alleges that he also suffered retaliation by being harassed and intimidated by a former Local Union 63 business agent and by having his name mentioned slanderously at a Local Union 63 membership meeting.

These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee.

1.  Allegations Concerning Interference with Vacation Pay

Mr. Vigil was originally hired as a part-time hiring hall dispatcher by Local

Union 208.  He continued in that position when Local Union 208 merged into Local Union 63.  On January 12, 1996, Local Union 63 laid off about 10 staff members, including Mr. Vigil.

Richard Vigil

April 1, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Vigil claimed that he was owed two weeks of vacation pay and one day of “show up” pay.[1]  The local union disagreed, but decided to pay him as a “nuisance settlement.” 

Mr. Cammack asked Greg Roth, former secretary-treasurer of Local Union 208 and current Local Union 63 business agent, to resolve the matter.  On or about February 20, 1996,

Mr. Roth presented Mr. Vigil with a release “in full settlement of all monetary issues” as of his lay-off date, but Mr. Vigil neither accepted it nor proposed changes.  Ultimately,

Mr. Cammack authorized payment without a release, which Mr. Vigil picked up on March 11, 1996.

Mr. Vigil filed this protest, claiming retaliation for his candidacy, on March 8.  As grounds, he contends that he told Mr. Cammack that he would run for delegate as early as December 1995.  He claims that Mr. Cammack wanted to run unopposed, warned local union business agents and others not to run, threatened Mr. Vigil with not getting his check if

Mr. Vigil ran,[2] and told Mr. Vigil not to speak at local union meetings. 

In response, Mr. Cammack states that the recent local union officer election was highly contested and that he did not expect to run for delegate unopposed.  He denies all of

Mr. Vigil’s allegations and states that he probably had not spoken to Mr. Vigil since the local union’s Christmas party in December 1995, and then, not about the delegate election.  Local Union 63 Business Agents Roth and Dick Walden state that Mr. Cammack never warned them not to run for delegate and that they never heard Mr. Cammack warn any other staff member or Mr. Vigil.  Finally, Mr. Cammack states that he did not know that Mr. Vigil had filed a protest on March 11, 1996, when he authorized payment without a release.

Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules prohibits any “[r]etaliation or threat of retaliation by . . . any [IBT] subordinate body . . . against a Union member . . . for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules . . .”  The Election Officer does not find such a violation on this record.

The Election Officer has stated that allegations of retaliation cannot be sustained “unless there is some evidence which connects, expressly or through reasonable implication, the protested conduct with the exercise of a guaranteed right under the Rules.”  Hammond,

P-250-IBT-SCE (January 2, 1996).  In this matter, the Election Officer credits

Richard Vigil

April 1, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Cammack’s version of events, as corroborated by Messrs. Roth and Walden and by the documents in the record.  The Election Officer finds that the steps taken by Local Union 63 to resolve Mr. Vigil’s claim for pay were reasonable in view of its disagreement with Mr. Vigil.  Mr. Vigil asserts that it was his protest that resulted in payment, but the Election Officer finds that the local union had not yet learned of the protest at that time.  The Election Officer mailed notice of the protest to Local Union 63 on March 11; the local union paid Mr. Vigil on that date, before it would have received the notice.

For the foregoing reasons, the protest in P-595-LU63-CLA is DENIED.

2.  Allegations Concerning Harassment, Intimidation and Slander

On March 6, 1996, Mr. Vigil had an argument in Local Union 63’s Montebello office with Bob Cannon, a former Local Union 63 business agent laid off at the same time as

Mr. Vigil.  Mr. Vigil claims that Mr. Cannon asked him why he had filed a workers’ compensation claim against the local union, having heard the claim announced at a general membership meeting on February 24, 1996.  They then discussed their respective independent candidacies for delegate, with Mr. Cannon stating that he was going to withdraw his support for Mr. Cammack.  The discussion grew heated due to their disagreement over the local union’s maintenance of its hiring hall.  After Mr. Vigil stood up to defend himself against Mr. Cannon’s alleged harassment, Mr. Cannon left the lobby and, ultimately, left the building through a rear exit.

With respect to the announcement of Mr. Vigil’s workers’ compensation claim at a membership meeting, Mr. Cammack states that it is Local Union 63 procedure to read the minutes of previous meetings verbatim.  At the February 24 general membership meeting, minutes were read were from a February 21 meeting of the local union’s executive board, which contain:  “Tom Chavez and Richard Vigil have filed Workers Comp. claims against the Local.  Both claims are being disputed as being invalid.”  Mr. Vigil did not attend the February 24 meeting, but claims that Mr. Chavez was not mentioned.  Mr. Cammack and Local Union 63 President Robert Molina attended the meeting and state that they remember hearing the names of both Mr. Chavez and Mr. Vigil.

The Election Officer finds no evidence of retaliation in these facts.  With respect to the confrontation between Messrs. Vigil and Cannon, the Rules prohibit retaliation, not arguments.  Stefanski, P-282-LU714-SCE, et seq. (January 22, 1996); Dunn, P-110-

LU25-ENG (July 28, 1995).  The Election Officer finds that Mr. Cannon neither took, nor threatened to take, any action against Mr. Vigil in retaliation for Mr. Vigil’s candidacy.  The discussion did not become heated until they disagreed over the local union’s hiring hall, a legitimate subject of debate within the local union that Mr. Vigil’s protest does not link this agreement to the delegate election.  Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that

Mr. Cannon, in arguing with Mr. Vigil, was acting for Mr. Cammack or the local union, which had laid off Mr. Cannon and Mr. Vigil at the same time.  Thus, these facts show no link between Mr. Cannon and the local union or between the argument and the delegate election.

Richard Vigil

April 1, 1996

Page 1

With respect to the disclosure of Mr. Vigil’s workers’ compensation claim, the Election Officer finds that this occurred in the normal course of a local union meeting, that it did not distinguish between the similarly situated Messrs. Chavez and Vigil, and that it was not done for any slanderous or retaliatory purpose.

For the foregoing reasons, the protest in P-611-LU63-CLA 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

Dolly M. Gee, Regional Coordinator