Protest Decisions

May 30, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Richard A. Speich

208 Arthur Street

Linden, NJ  07036

Walter J. Blusewicz, President

Teamsters Local Union 877

411-A N. Wood Avenue

Linden, NJ  07036

Re:  Election Office Case No. Post-4-LU877-PNJ

Gentlemen:

Richard A. Speich, a member of Local Union 877 and successful candidate for delegate, filed this post-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 3 of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"), alleging that he has suffered retaliation for his candidacy and victory.  Mr. Speich states that Local Union President

Walter J. Blusewicz, a losing candidate for alternate delegate on another slate, has interfered with Mr. Speich's duties as chief steward, made false statements about him and other members of his slate, and removed him from his position as Employee Assistance Person ("EAP") in the local union's Employee Assistance Program.[1]

This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks.

Mr. Speich is one of Local Union 877's two elected chief stewards.  According to a schedule of duties that Mr. Blusewicz distributed in February 1995, Mr. Speich's duties as chief

Richard A. Speich

May 30, 1996

Page 1

steward include "[e]nsur[ing] that all notices are posted in Union bulletin boards" and "[g]iv[ing] handouts to respective Shop Stewards for distribution to members."  Mr. Speich alleges,

During the days prior to the election our Union and Company [Bayway Refining Co.] went into contract negotiations.  Instead of giving the bulletins for the Bargaining Demands meeting to me to post in the Union Bulletin Boards, as would be the normal and proper procedure, they were handed out by members on the other slate; left at work sites, on tables, etc.  A survey for bargaining was also conducted.  This survey was handed out to Stewards and collected by other members of the Executive Board.  I feel that this directly fell into my line of responsibility.

Mr. Speich's position as an EAP was appointed.  He alleges that "[w]hen our slate won the election on February 23, 1996 the reprisals and abuse became worse," culminating in a statement that Mr. Blusewicz read into the minutes of an Executive Board meeting on March 6, 1996.[2]  In that statement, Mr. Blusewicz removed Mr. Speich as an EAP and replaced him by Thomas Warncke, a member of Mr. Blusewicz's slate.  Mr. Speich also contends that the statement wrongly suggests that persons on Mr. Speich's slate purposefully worked against the contract negotiations.  He further states that Mr. Blusewicz concluded with the threat "that if we were not happy with these changes, write all the letters; or make all the phone calls you want.  But you better be prepared for the consequences."[3]

With respect to Mr. Speich's duties as chief steward, Mr. Blusewicz responds that in mid-1995, he started receiving complaints that bulletin boards were not being kept up to date and that stewards were not receiving hand-outs.  He states that he spoke to Mr. Speich about the problem and, when it persisted several months later, put Mr. Speich on probation.  About five or six months prior to the ballot count, Mr. Blusewicz states that he and Recording Secretary

Jim Wysocki told Mr. Speich that other members would post notices.

Responding to Mr. Speich's specific complaint about the posting of bargaining demand notices, Mr. Blusewicz admits that members of his slate posted notices relating to the Bayway Refining Co. contract negotiations during a weekend on their own time.  He states, however, that during the same time period, Mr. Speich was asked to post two bargaining meeting notices, which Mr. Speich did on time paid by the company.  Mr. Blusewicz also admits that he and

Richard A. Speich

May 30, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Wysocki distributed the bargaining survey directly through the local union's stewards and received twice the normally expected response.

With respect to removing Mr. Speich as an EAP, Mr. Blusewicz responds that he appointed Mr. Speich in January 1994 and removed him in March 1996 under the authority granted by the local union's bylaws to the president to "appoint all committees . . ." 

Mr. Blusewicz asserts that he removed Mr. Speich in connection with a hearing on a member's early, involuntary retirement for medical reasons.  Mr. Speich brought two other local union officials to the hearing, and management called Mr. Blusewicz with concerns over the confidentiality of the medical problems discussed.  Mr. Blusewicz states that he tried to talk to Mr. Speich later that evening, but Mr. Speich turned his back and has not since reported on the hearing or his actions.  Mr. Blusewicz states:  "If a person is given a job and then refuses to keep me informed, or speak to me about the matter, I cannot ensure that the membership is receiving the best representation."

Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules prohibits: 

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 . . .

In evaluating charges of retaliation, the Election Officer requires “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); Vigil,

P-595-LU63-CLA, et seq. (April 1, 1996), aff'd, 96 - Elec. App. - 167 (KC) (April 12, 1996).  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.  Tuscino, P-639-IBT-SCE (April 12, 1996), aff'd, 96 - Elec. App. - 178 (KC) (April 24, 1996); 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, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995).

In this matter, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Blusewicz's decision to reassign some of Mr. Speich's duties with respect to posting notices and distributing hand-outs had no nexus to the delegate election.  Mr. Blusewicz cites a history of complaints and actions on this issue that date well before Local Union 877's nomination meeting.  The Rules are not concerned with matters outside the scope of the delegate election.  The Election Officer finds that Mr. Blusewicz had an independent and pre-existing basis for taking the actions complained of, and thus there was no retaliation under the Rules.

Richard A. Speich

May 30, 1996

Page 1

With respect to Mr. Blusewicz's action in removing Mr. Speich as an EAP, the Election Officer notes that local union officers are not restricted from removing appointed officials from office for personal or political reasons.  Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 (1982).  The Election Officer will find a violation of the Rules, however, if such removal is in retaliation for the exercise of a right protected by the Rules.  See Wsol.  During the investigation, Mr. Blusewicz defended his action by recounting his dissatisfaction with the way in which Mr. Speich handled a confidential medical hearing and his failure to communicate about it thereafter.  Furthermore, minutes of a local union Executive Board meeting of October 2, 1995, submitted by Mr. Speich in support of his protest, show that Mr. Blusewicz strongly disagreed with Mr. Speich's handling of another EAP matter, where Mr. Speich had received complaints from two supervisors about the alleged intoxication of a steward at a meeting.  The Election Officer finds no evidence that connects Mr. Speich's removal to Local Union 877's delegate election.

Mr. Speich suggests, however, that the timing of his removal, less than two weeks after the ballot count in the local union delegate election, shows political motivation.  The removal was part of Mr. Blusewicz's March 4 statement, which Mr. Speich contends was the culmination of Mr. Blusewicz's retaliation, including falsehoods about members of Mr. Speich's slate.  The Election Officer finds after careful review that Mr. Blusewicz's statement was motivated by his perceptions of disunity in the local union, starting 26 months previously.  It states his belief that in the Bayway Refining Co. contract negotiation several of his "political rivals" issued fliers that alerted the company to division in the membership, which allowed the company to be less flexible and resulted in a proposal that the membership rejected.  In the statement, he sets a new schedule for closed Executive Committee meetings, establishes a new policy for taking paid leave from work for local union business, establishes a requirement that he be at every meeting between the local union and either of two named employers (except for second-step grievance meetings), and makes the two changes in committee chair persons discussed above.

The Election Officer finds that Mr. Blusewicz's statement reflects ongoing political rivalry in the local union which arose prior to the local union delegate election.  None of the events discussed were connected to the election, and the statement does not refer to it.  The changes that Mr. Blusewicz makes are related to day-to-day control of local union affairs.  While it appears that Local Union 877's political factions ended up on opposing sides of the delegate election, that fact alone does not turn their ongoing dispute into a delegate election matter under the Rules.  The Election Officer finds that Mr. Blusewicz's statement was motivated by issues and events independent of, and in some aspects pre-existing, the delegate election.  Therefore, the statement did not implicate rights protected by the Rules and was not retaliatory under Article VIII, Section 11(f).

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:

Richard A. Speich

May 30, 1996

Page 1

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

Peter V. Marks, Regional Coordinator