OFFICE OF THE ELECTION OFFICER
for the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
400 N. Capitol Street NW, Suite 855
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 624-3500
(800) 565-VOTE
Fax (202) 624-3525
Barbara Zack Quindel Milwaukee Office:
Election Officer Perry, Lerner & Quindel, S.C.
823 N. Cass Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
(414) 272-7400
June 30, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Darryl Sullivan Paul Alan Levy, Esq.
2059 Richmond Public Citizen Litigation Group
Arlington, TX 76014 2000 P. Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington D.C. 20036
T.C. Stone, Jr. James L. Hicks, Jr., Esq.
Secretary-Treasurer Hicks & Associates, P.C.
IBT Local Union 745 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane
1007 Jonelle Street P.O. Box 560388
Dallas, TX 75217 Dallas, TX XXX-XX-XXXX
RE: Election Office Case No. P-084-LU745-SCE
Gentlemen:
This is a protest filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2 (b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules") by Paul Alan Levy, Esq., Public Citizen Litigation Group on behalf of Darryl Sullivan, a member of Local Union 745. The protest alleges that statements made from the podium by T.C. Stone, Jr., Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 745, and James Hicks, Esq., and the Local Union's failure to maintain order during the membership meeting held on Sunday June 4, 1995, were "all in retaliation for his having exercised his rights under the Election Rules by filing earlier Protests" against them in Case No. P-060-LU745-SCE. Sullivan alleges that he has been retaliated against for filing a protest on May 24, 1995 alleging that certain conduct by Secretary-Treasurer Stone, Attorney Hicks, and Local Union 745 violated the Rules.
The instant protest alleges that during a Local Union 745 membership meeting on Sunday, June 4, 1995, Secretary-Treasurer Stone and Local Union 745 Attorney Hicks made explicit and implicit threats of violence based on Sullivan’s filing of a pre-election protest. The complainant further alleges that the failure to maintain order at the meeting created an atmosphere of intimidation with the audience shouting remarks such as “get a rope.”
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens. The June 4, 1995 membership meeting of Local Union 745 was attended by several hundred members. The meeting was videotaped and the Local Union furnished a copy of the tape to the Election Officer. A careful review of the videotape with respect to those parts relevant to the instant protest reveals that early in the meeting, Recording Secretary Tyson Johnson read the minutes from an earlier Executive Board meeting. The minutes included a report that a protest had been filed with the Election Office alleging violations of the Rules. Recording Secretary Johnson stated the nature of the protest without naming who had filed it.
After much of the routine business of the meeting had been presented, Attorney Hicks made a five to six minute presentation to the membership. The primary focus of Attorney Hick’s presentation was critical of the leadership of the International Union on a number of issues. He also criticized efforts of the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”) to silence opponents and indicated he intended to continue to speak out on the issues. Specifically, Attorney Hicks referred to the protest filed by Attorney Levy and “a member of this Local Union.” Attorney Hicks did not mention Sullivan or any other member of Local Union 745 by name.
Secretary-Treasurer Stone, in a presentation which lasted approximately 15 minutes, was the third speaker to address the filing of the protest. He specifically named Darryl Sullivan, who was in attendance, as the Local Union 745 member who had filed the protest. Secretary-Treasurer Stone attacked General President Carey, both personally and for his policies. He ridiculed Local Union 745 members who support TDU as lacking intelligence and courage. On a number of occasions, Stone vehemently defended the expenditures of Local Union 745, which were the subject of the protest, and on at least two occasions challenged any members to immediately come to the podium and inform the membership if they had any evidence of improper use of the Local Union’s funds or if they wished to speak on behalf of the General President. No member of the Local Union came forward to speak in response to Secretary-Treasurer Stone’s invitation.
The Election Officer's review of the presentation of Attorney Hicks reveals that he expressed strong disagreement with the allegations set forth in the protest and was highly critical of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, its attorney and the TDU. Significantly, however, Attorney Hicks did not identify or otherwise target Protestor Sullivan or any other member of Local Union 745 for criticism or invective for having filed the protest. This allegation is, therefore, not substantiated by the evidence presented.
An analysis of Secretary-Treasurer Stone's discussion of the protest reveals a disdain for the positions asserted in the protest and of the member who filed it. An analysis of the videotape further reveals that the vast majority of those attending the meeting agreed with Secretary-Treasurer Stone. On at least two occasions, Stone invited anyone who disagreed with him to come up to the podium and express their views. Given the emotionally-charged presentation by Secretary-Treasurer Stone, this was more of a challenge than an invitation. It is not surprising that no member came forward to challenge Stone's assertions.
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
Protestor Sullivan sat in the middle of the relatively crowded meeting room and was frightened by the tone of Secretary-Treasurer Stone's discussion of the protest and the reaction of the members to the presentation. Sullivan indicates, however, that no one confronted him during or after the meeting with respect to the protest or Stone's comments.
The Office of the Election Officer has long held that: “[T]he right of IBT members to file election protests, even protests which are found to be non-meritorious, go to the heart of the safeguards mandated by the Rules and the Consent Order.” In re: Puglisi, Case No. P-1074-LU64-ENG (Nov. 25, 1991), aff’d, 91-Elec. App.-242, aff’d, 88 CIV. 4486, slip op., (S.D.N.Y. 1992). The Rules explicitly provide that “[a]ny member . . . may file a protest with the Election Officer alleging non-compliance with the Rules, free from retaliation or threat of retaliation by any person or entity for such filing.” Article XIV, Section 1.
By the time Secretary Treasurer Stone spoke about the protest, the members had been well-informed about the fact of the protest filing against the Local Union and its leadership’s opposition to the protest. The Election Officer's review of the investigation and of the videotape of the June 4, 1995 meeting of Local Union 745 reveals that when Secretary-Treasurer Stone spoke, he named the protestors including Local Union 745 member Sullivan and engaged in a prolonged, emotionally-charged attack on the positions espoused in P-060 and inferentially upon Sullivan as the Local Union 745 member responsible for the protest. In doing so, Stone, whether intentionally or not, created an atmosphere of hostility toward any member who would file a protest with the Election Officer. This atmosphere was so pervasive in its intensity that other members, who may in the future wish to consider filing election protests, would almost certainly believe that they might be subjected to a similar lengthy, scathing attack before a crowded meeting of the members. In the view of the Election Officer, this intense hostility to election protests and those who would file them was generated by the conduct of Secretary-Treasurer Stone at the June 4, 1995 membership meeting.
As was stated by the Election Officer in In re: Farkas, Case No. P-949-LU812-NYC (October 14, 1991), aff’d, 91-Elec. App.-210 (October 24, 1991):
The intimidating atmosphere created by this improper speech cannot be undone. This conclusion follows even if [the speaker] did not intend the effects of his speech. The purpose of the Rules and of the Consent Decree is to create an open and free atmosphere for an uncoerced, free, fair and honest election among IBT members. The atmosphere created at the meeting, whether intended or not, runs squarely contrary to that purpose and thus justifies the remedial measures set forth below.
The protest further alleges that Local Union 745 violated the Rules by failing to maintain order and allowing an intimidating atmosphere to prevail at the June 4 meeting. While the conduct of Secretary-Treasurer Stone was violative of the Rules and the responses of the membership were at times raucous and clearly supportive of Stone, the investigation did not reveal that the membership made any direct or indirect threats to Sullivan or any other member who might disagree with the position of the Local Union 745 leadership with respect to P-060-LU745-SCE. The evidence presented is, therefore, insufficient to sustain this allegation of the protest.
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is GRANTED as to the conduct of Secretary-Treasurer Stone at the June 4, 1995, meeting of Local Union 745 and DENIED as to the other allegations in the protest.
To help eradicate the climate of intimidation created by the conduct of the June 4, 1995 membership meeting of Local Union 745, Secretary-Treasurer Stone shall post the attached notice within seven (7) days of the date of this decision on all Local Union 745 bulletin boards for thirty (30) days from the day of posting. Within two (2) days of posting the notice, the principal officer of Local Union 745 shall file an affidavit with the Election Officer, demonstrating compliance with this directive.
If any interested party is not satisfied with this determination, they may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of their 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.
Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon
180 Maiden Lane, 36th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Fax (212) 248-2655
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North 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: Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy
NOTICE TO TEAMSTER MEMBERS
FROM T.C. STONE, SECREATRY-TREASURER,
IBT LOCAL UNION 745
Pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election, you have the right to file a protest concerning any violation of the Rules for the election free from retaliation or threat of retaliation by any person or entity for having filed such protests with the Office of the Election Officer.
No one, no Local Union officer, delegate, steward, employee of member may threaten, coerce, harass or otherwise retaliate or take any other adverse action against you because you have filed a protest with the Election Officer pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-96 IBT election.
Any attempt by any Local 745 officer, delegate, steward, employee or member to interfere or retaliate against you for filing a protest pursuant to the Rules of the Office of the Election Officer should be immediately reported to Barbara Zack Quindel, Election Officer, IBT at her Washington, DC office. All such reports shall be immediately investigated and appropriate and remedial action taken.
____________________________
T.C. STONE
Secretary-Treasurer, Local Union 745, IBT
This is an official notice, and must remain posted for thirty consecutive days from the day of posting, and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material.