December 5, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Gary R. Standard
1005 Key Colony
Garland, TX 75043
Joe Lesmaster, President
Teamsters Local Union 767
6109 Anglin Drive
Forest Hill, TX 76119
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1303-LU767-SOU
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
Gary R. Standard, a member of Local Union 767. Mr. Standard alleges that officers of Local Union 767 have retaliated against him for filing a prior protest with the Election Officer.
Specifically, Mr. Standard alleges that he was publicly criticized via CB radio by
the wife of a member of the local union’s executive board. He also contends that Steward
Lou Mora attempted to intimidate him in a face-to-face confrontation and that the local union produced and distributed copies of Mr. Standard’s prior protest and the local union’s response. The protester also asserts that executive board member Alton Green was verbally abused
by other members of the executive board because of his support for the candidacy of
Ron Carey, incumbent general president and a candidate for reelection, and in retaliation for Mr. Standard’s filing of a protest. He also alleges that he has been harassed because his protest and the local union’s response to the protest were copied and passed around.
The local union responds that the protest should be dismissed as untimely and that
the allegations concerning Mr. Green should be dismissed because they were not filed by
Gary Standard
December 5, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Green himself. The local union denies reproducing the protest and response, and denies that Mr. Green was verbally harassed or intimidated at the executive board meeting.
Mr. Mora denies attempting to harass or intimidate Mr. Standard. He states that he approached Mr. Standard because he believed Mr. Standard was disseminating literature
that falsely accused Local Union 767 President Joe Lesmaster of ties to organized crime.
Mr. Mora states that he asked Mr. Standard where he got such information and that
Mr. Standard became defensive and rude. Mr. Mora states that he did not become belligerent and did not threaten Mr. Standard.
Regional Coordinator Dolores C. Hall investigated the protest.
1. Timeliness
The local union’s arguments concerning the timeliness of the protest are without merit. The protester alleges an ongoing pattern of retaliation. Thus, he may incorporate events normally time-barred into his allegation in order to show the breadth of the pattern or practice. The investigation revealed that the latest incident asserted by Mr. Standard as part of the pattern or practice occurred within two business days of the filing of his protest. In addition, it is reasonable that a delay existed between the executive board meeting and the alleged reporting of events at the meeting to Mr. Standard. According to Mr. Standard, Mr. Green relayed the events of the meeting to him on November 23, 1996. Mr. Standard filed the current protest on November 25, 1996. The Election Officer has previously accepted protests from individuals who did not witness events, but learned of them afterwards. Such protests are not untimely so long as no unreasonable delay occurred between the protested event, the protester’s discovery of the event and the filing of the protest. The Election Officer finds no such unreasonable delay here. The local union’s contention that Mr. Green should have filed a protest is also without merit, as any member under the Rules may file a protest.
2. Allegations of Harassment and Intimidation
The Election Officer has consistently held that it is violative of the Rules to discipline or take any other adverse action against an IBT member for filing a protest with the Election Officer. See Crawley, P-098-LU998-PNJ (June 30, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 1 (KC) (July 14, 1995); In Re: Puglisi, P-1074-LU64-ENG (November 25, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 242, aff’d, 88 CIV. 4486, slip op., (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
The investigation revealed that Carleen McMahen, the executive board member’s wife, spoke to Mr. Standard via CB radio. Ms. McMahen states that she chastised Mr. Standard for writing the “letter” (she states she never used the word “protest”) and not discussing its contents with her first. She did this over a commonly-used frequency near an area traveled by drivers represented by the local union. Ms. McMahen did not threaten any discipline or adverse action, and stating her opinion did not interfere with Mr. Standard’s protected right to file the protest.
Gary Standard
December 5, 1996
Page 1
As to the actions of Mr. Lesmaster, the investigation revealed that at a general membership meeting, Mr. Lesmaster referred to Mr. Standard’s prior protest and denounced it publicly. Such conduct does not violate the Rules. The Election Appeals Master held in In Re: Sullivan, 95 - Elec. App. - 2 (KC) (July 14, 1995) that a local union officer may respond to allegations made against the local union or its officers at membership meetings. So long as the speaker does not threaten the protester or encourage the audience to threaten or intimidate the protester, the local union has a right to defend itself “from allegations of serious misconduct.” Id. Mr. Lesmaster’s references to the prior protest do not, as a result, violate the Rules.
The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(f), prohibit retaliation and the threat of retaliation by any person against a member for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules. However, Section 11(f) does not proscribe “the natural discourse that arises as a result of campaign-related activities,” even if heated. Furst, P-949-LU430-PNJ (October 9, 1996) (“heated discussion” between protester and charged party does not violate Rules). See Dunn, P-110-LU25-BOS (July 28, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 8 (KC) (August 21, 1995) (local union president did not violate Rules by following, hovering near and blocking path of campaigning member); Corriea, P-930-LU150-CSF (September 12, 1996) (fact that charged party, much taller than protester, stood over latter’s desk, did not constitute violation, as charged party “was not aggressive or violent, nor did he threaten aggression or violence in any way”); Mee et al., P-1153-LU853-CSF et seq. (November 13, 1996) (“nasty exchange” between Carey and Hoffa supporters which was “heated and emotional” did not violate the Rules).
As to the allegations concerning Mr. Mora, Mr. Mora states that he confronted
Mr. Standard because he learned that Mr. Standard distributed flyers linking Mr. Lesmaster to organized crime. Mr. Standard states that Mr. Mora demanded that he provide evidence of this assertion. The investigation revealed that the incident occurred because of Mr. Mora’s objection to the content of the flyer. The protester alleges that Mr. Mora threatened him during their confrontation by saying, “You’d better watch what you’re saying!” The investigation revealed that an energetic exchange between Mr. Mora and Mr. Standard took place, but did not reveal that Mr. Mora threatened Mr. Standard. While the discussion may have been heated, it did not violate the Rules.
Mr. Standard also alleges that Mr. Green was harassed at an executive board meeting. The investigation revealed that Mr. Green was subjected to verbal abuse at the referenced executive board meeting. Mr. Green states that, because his political affiliation is different than those of the other board members, he is often the target of insulting language at these meetings. The investigation, however, did not disclose any connection between the abuse received by Mr. Green and the filing of a protest by Mr. Standard. The witnesses do not state that the protest was referenced at the meeting, nor was Mr. Standard mentioned. Mr. Green asserts that the statements at the referenced meeting were more vicious than normal and that, for the first time, they were made in the presence of board members’ wives. While such verbal abuse may be ugly, the evidence presented does not indicate a Rules violation.
Gary Standard
December 5, 1996
Page 1
As to the allegation about distribution of the protest and the local union’s response to said protest, the investigation also failed to disclose the identity of any individual or individuals who copied and distributed Mr. Standard’s protest and the local union’s response. The reproduction of the protest and the local union’s response, without more, would not necessarily be a violation of the Rules. See In Re: Sullivan, supra.
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
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
Dolores C. Hall, Regional Coordinator