Schultz & Teamsters United, 2017 ESD 382

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: KIMBERLY SCHULTZ &            )           Protest Decision 2017 ESD 382

            TEAMSTERS UNITED,                  )           Issued: February 15, 2017

            Protestors.                                         )           OES Case No. P-422-012617-NA           

____________________________________)                      

Kimberly Schultz and Teamsters United filed a post-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that the IBT, the IBT General Executive Board, IBT General President Hoffa, and the Hoffa-Hall 2016 slate violated the Rules by revoking the charter of IBT Local Union 2011. 

The protest asserted that the IBT had designated a representative who was to go to Local Union 2011 on January 30, 2017 and take control of the local union’s books and records, and the local union charter.  The protest requested an interim order restraining such action pending determination of the protest.

As documented in Schultz & Teamsters United, 2017 ESD 372 (January 27, 2017), we determined the requested interim relief was unnecessary because the IBT informed us that the designated representative “has been instructed to do nothing with Local 2011 until further notice.” 

Additional investigation showed that a letter was transmitted from the IBT by fax and email on January 6, 2017 for the purpose of advising protestor Schultz of her “opportunity to inform the General Executive Board of your view as to whether the Charter for Local 2011 should be maintained or revoked, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the International Constitution.  Please provide any statement you may wish the General Executive Board to consider to this office no later than close of business on January 11, 2017.”

The January 6 letter was transmitted by fax and email.  The fax number used was not that of the local union, as listed on its website.  Instead, it was sent to the fax of the former Trustee of the local union.  Protestor Schultz denied receiving the fax.

The email address used was not the official email address listed on the local union website.  Instead, it was personal email address of protestor Schultz.  She denied seeing the notice until it was brought to her attention during the investigation of this protest. 

Not receiving the January 6 notice in a timely manner, neither Local Union 2011 nor protestor Schultz made a submission to the GEB on the subject of charter revocation.  On January 24, 2017, notice from the IBT was transmitted advising that the charter had been revoked.

This protest followed, alleging retaliation under Article VII, Section 12(g) of the Rules.  One basis for the protest was the IBT’s alleged failure to comply with its constitutional procedure concerning charter revocation.  Article IX, Section 2(a) of the IBT constitution states that, “[u]nless otherwise provided in this Constitution, the General President or the General Secretary-Treasurer, when he deems it necessary to suspend or revoke a charter, shall immediately notify the members of the General Executive Board for their approval of same.  Such action shall not be taken without notice to and hearing for the affiliate involved.”

            Following OES consultation with the IBT, the IBT will undertake to conduct a de novo hearing before a three-member panel of the GEB on the issue of whether to revoke the charter of Local Union 2011.  The hearing will be conducted by conference telephone call on reasonable notice to Local Union 2011.  The notice will be transmitted to the fax number and email address displayed on Local Union 2011’s website.

            On this basis, we deem the aspect of the protest alleging that the IBT retaliated by failing to invoke the constitutional procedure applicable to charter revocation RESOLVED.  Given the impending hearing, we DENY as premature all further aspects of the protest.  Our decision here does not bar or foreclose any interested party from filing a new protest based on future acts or omissions.

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision.  The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor in any such appeal.  Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:

Kathleen A. Roberts

Election Appeals Master

JAMS

620 Eighth Avenue, 34^th floor

New York, NY 10018

kroberts@jamsadr.com

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, c/o Jeffrey Ellison, 214 S. Main Street, Suite 212, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

                                                                        Richard W. Mark

                                                                        Election Supervisor

cc:       Kathleen A. Roberts

            2017 ESD 382

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):