October 31, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Frances Webb & Doug Partin
October 31, 1996
Page 1
Frances Webb
14300 Tiggy Duplessis
Gonzales, LA 70737
Doug Partin
517 Perrytown Road
Crosby, MS 39633
Keith Partin, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 5
1772 Dallas Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
Frances Webb & Doug Partin
October 31, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-1115-LU5-EOH
P-1126-LU5-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Frances Webb and Doug Partin, members of Local Union 5. The protesters allege that Keith Partin, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 5, issued them, and other members of the local union, withdrawal cards because of their support for Ron Carey, IBT general president and a candidate for reelection, in violation of the Rules. Ms. Webb also contends that
Keith Partin failed to issue withdrawal cards to two local union members, who have been unemployed for more than six months, because the two individuals support the candidacy of James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president. She alleges that the failure to issue these candidates withdrawal cards amounts to discriminatory treatment on the basis of political affiliation, in violation of the Rules.
Keith Partin responds that he placed the protesters and 32 other members of the local union on withdrawal because, after investigating membership requirements in conjunction with a charge filed against him, he discovered that members who had been unemployed for six months or more must be placed on involuntary withdrawal, in accordance with Article XVIII, Section 6(a) of the IBT Constitution.
Frances Webb & Doug Partin
October 31, 1996
Page 1
Election Office Staff Attorney Jonathan K. O’Neill investigated the protest.
The investigation revealed that on September 19, 1996, Doug Partin filed a charge with Local Union 5 alleging that Keith Partin had violated the IBT constitution by failing to place Al Lopez, vice president of Local Union 5, on withdrawal. Doug Partin asserted that
Mr. Lopez had been unemployed for more than six months and had refused work.
After the filing of this charge, Keith Partin contacted the IBT to determine the responsibilities of a local union to issue withdrawal cards to unemployed members. He spoke with Dick Bell, administrative assistant to the general secretary-treasurer. Mr. Bell explained to Mr. Partin the requirements of the IBT Constitution, which include the issuance of withdrawal cards for members who have been unemployed for six months or more and are not employed seasonally.
At that time, Keith Partin also learned that, under Article II, Section 4(e) of the Constitution, members who are part-time local union officers not otherwise employed for more than six months cannot be placed on withdrawal until the conclusion of their terms as local union officer. Keith Partin states that prior local union practice had been to allow unemployed members to remain on active status as long as they signed the out-of-work list at the local union’s hiring hall.
According to Keith Partin, after his conversations with the IBT, he realized that the local union practice was at variance with the IBT Constitution. In an effort to correct this, he examined the local union’s records and discovered 34 members who retained active status even though they had not worked for at least six months. He determined that these members did not work seasonally, so he placed them on withdrawal.
The investigation produced no evidence to indicate that Keith Partin placed these individuals on withdrawal because of their support of the candidacy of Mr. Carey. Both
Ms. Webb and Doug Partin argue that they are employed seasonally and, therefore, should be exempt from the involuntary withdrawal requirement. The investigation revealed that, rather than being employed in a seasonal industry, the individuals placed on withdrawal work on jobs assigned by the hiring hall as they become available. Such work experience is not seasonal as defined by the IBT Constitution.
In addition, Ms. Webb asserts that the withdrawals were discriminatory because neither Mr. Lopez nor Joseph Webb, president of Local Union 5, were placed on withdrawal though neither has worked for at least six months. This assertion is without merit because the IBT Constitution, at Article II, Section 4(e), provides that such part-time officers may not be placed on withdrawal until the expiration of their terms of office.
Frances Webb & Doug Partin
October 31, 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.[1] To demonstrate retaliation, a protester must show that conduct protected by the Rules was a motivating factor in the adverse decision or conduct in dispute. 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. Gilmartin, P-032-LU245-PNJ (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 75 (KC) (February 6, 1996). See Leal, P-051- IBT-CSF (October 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 30 (KC) (October 30, 1995); Wsol.
In the present case, the protesters provided no evidence to support their claims of retaliation for the exercise of rights guaranteed under the Rules. Doug Partin states that the withdrawals are partly motivated by a desire of Keith Partin to retaliate for Doug Partin’s filing of the charge in which he alleged Keith Partin had failed to place Mr. Lopez on withdrawal. The filing of an internal union charge is not an activity protected by the Rules without some other connection to the election.
In addition, the Election Officer found no evidence of a discriminatory application of the new withdrawal policy. The only names provided by Ms. Webb as evidence of discriminatory practice were those of two local union officers who, for the duration of the terms of their offices, are immune from the involuntary withdrawal requirements of the Constitution.
For the foregoing reasons, 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
Frances Webb & Doug Partin
October 31, 1996
Page 1
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, D.C. 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
[1]Article VIII, Section 11(f) states:
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.