November 19, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Marty Crandall
Teamsters Local Union 150
7120 East Parkway
Sacramento, CA 95823
Jim Baumgartner
7628 Pine Valley Drive
Sacramento, CA 95828
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1189-LU150-EOH
Gentlemen:
A 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”) by Marty Crandall, a Local Union 150 business agent. Mr. Crandall alleges that Jim Baumgartner, a member of Local Union 150, provided false evidence to the Election Officer during the course of the investigation conducted as a result of a formal request for a Rules clarification made by Cliff Webb, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 150. Mr. Crandall contends that, because of this false evidence, the Election Officer’s determination of the request for clarification is erroneous.
Election Office Staff Attorney Jonathan K. O’Neill investigated the protest.
Marty Crandall
November 19, 1996
Page 1
The investigation revealed that Mr. Webb made a written request for a Rules clarification to the Election Officer in order to determine whether the local union was obligated to reimburse a member who used paid vacation leave to attend the IBT Convention as a delegate or alternate delegate, for lost time. The Election Officer conducted an investigation of the specific facts giving rise to the request and issued a determination on September 12, 1996. The Election Officer stated that her investigation revealed that the request for reimbursement was made because Mr. Baumgartner had received compensation from both the local union and his employer since Mr. Baumgartner used vacation leave to attend the Convention. The Election Officer determined that Mr. Baumgartner’s use of vacation leave resulted from employer error and that, because Mr. Baumgartner had taken unpaid vacation from the employer after the Convention as a result of the error, no double benefit was accrued to Mr. Baumgartner.
In his protest, Mr. Crandall alleges that the collective bargaining agreement between the union and Mr. Baumgartner’s employer does not provide for unpaid leave for union business, so Mr. Baumgartner would have been forced to take vacation leave in any event. Mr. Crandall also claims that Mr. Baumgartner never took the unpaid vacation leave that would have prevented a double benefit. Mr. Crandall filed his protest with the Election Officer on November 6, 1996.
Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules requires protesters to file “within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested.” The short time limits are important to ensuring that alleged violations of the Rules are quickly brought to the attention of the Election Officer in order to afford the greatest opportunity for applying an effective remedy if a violation is found.
During the investigation, Mr. Crandall stated Mr. Webb showed him the Election Officer’s clarification when it was issued. According to Mr. Crandall, he and Mr. Webb then examined the relevant collective bargaining agreement to see if Mr. Baumgartner had the option of taking unpaid leave. Mr. Crandall states that he filed the protest after this research was completed.
Local Union 150 received the Election Officer’s determination in this matter via UPS overnight on September 13, 1996. Thirty-six business days elapsed between the receipt of the determination and the filing of the protest. Thirty-six days is an unreasonable delay and far more than the time required to examine a collective bargaining agreement. Mr. Crandall’s allegations are untimely as a result.
Accordingly, 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
Marty Crandall
November 19, 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