March 6, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Arthur Snow
3 Visby Avenue
Plainville, MA 02762
George Cashman, President
Teamsters Local Union 25
544 Main Street
Boston, MA 02129
Re: Election Office Case No. P-368-LU25-ENG
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 Arthur Snow, a member of Local Union 25 and a candidate for delegate. Mr. Snow alleges that Local Union 25 officers failed to post nomination results within five days following the local union’s nomination meeting on all union bulletin boards as required by Article II, Section 6 of the Rules. He charges that even after intervention by a representative of the Election Officer, the local union failed to post nomination results on a union bulletin board located at Hutchinson Industries (“Hutchinson”), an employer. He also alleges that when the nomination results were finally posted they were misleading and unfairly advantaged candidates on the Local Union 25 Membership/Carey slate.
Arthur Snow
March 6, 1996
Page 1
In response, Local Union 25 President George Cashman states that while the local union held its nomination meeting on January 21, 1996, an Election Officer representative did not approve the format of the notice until Friday, January 26, 1996. Upon approval, copies of the notices were mailed on that date to the appropriate stewards to post on union bulletin boards. Local Union 25 Vice President William Carnes states that the protester is mistaken as to Local Union 25’s alleged failure to post nomination results on all union bulletin boards. He states that Hutchinson shares a union bulletin board with another local union employer, DLS, Inc., and that nomination results were posted on that bulletin board.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Warren H. Pyle.
Local Union 25’s nomination meeting was held on January 21, 1996. On January 22, Janet McLaughlin, a secretary at the local union, spoke with Brian Flynn, an Election Officer representative, regarding the timing of posting nomination results. Mr. Flynn advised
Ms. McLaughlin that while results were required to be posted within five days of the nomination meeting, it is also required that such postings reflect the order of names as they will appear on the ballot. Because Article IX, Section 1(c ) of the Rules provides nominated candidates with three days following the nomination meeting to declare their affiliation with a slate, Mr. Flynn advised Ms. McLaughlin that Local Union 25 should wait until at least 5 p.m. on January 24 to post nomination results. On January 26, after no candidate availed him/herself of this right,
Mr. Flynn notified Local Union 25, and forwarded to Ms. McLaughlin the notice format listing slates and candidates nominated at the meeting. Local Union 25 mailed the nomination notice that same day to its stewards for posting.
In addition, shortly following the filing of this protest, Mr. Flynn contacted Local Union 25 Counsel Matthew Dwyer requesting a response to Mr. Snow’s allegation that the local union had not posted nomination results on all union bulletin boards. The union thereafter confirmed that the nomination results had been posted on all union bulletin boards in accordance with the Rules. A review of the Local Union Plan confirmed that Hutchinson and DLS share a single union bulletin board.
Article II, Section 6 of the Rules states that local unions shall, within five days of a nomination meeting, post on all union bulletin boards a list of nominated candidates by name and slate affiliation “if known at the time.”
Strict compliance with the Rules, therefore, requires that Local Union 25 nomination results should have been posted by January 26, 1996. As alleged by Mr. Snow, Local Union 25 nomination results were not posted until after January 26, 1996. However, sufficient evidence suggests that the local union’s failure to fully comply with the Rules was based upon advice given by an Election Officer representative. No evidence of bad faith on the part of Local Union 25 officials has been presented. Nor has evidence been presented that any candidates have been disadvantaged by Local Union 25’s failure to timely post a notice. Under these circumstances, the Election Officer finds the goal of “fair, honest, open and informed elections” has not been undermined.
Arthur Snow
March 6, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer also finds that notices of nomination results were posted on all local union bulletin boards as required by the Rules. Mr. Snow’s protest as to the order of candidates’ names listed on the notice also is without merit. No order of listing the names of candidates is mandated under the Rules. Generally, the order of candidate names on such notices have followed the order in which they will appear on the ballot. Pursuant to Article II, Section 10(b) of the Rules, the names of candidates who belong to a slate appear on the ballot before those of independent candidates.
In consideration of the foregoing, Mr. Snow’s 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, 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
Warren H. Pyle, Regional Coordinator