Protest Decisions

              April 10, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Matthew Pung

2809 Colanthe

Las Vegas, NV 89102

Robert R. McClone, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 631

307 Wall Street

Las Vegas, NV 89102

Re Election Office Case No. P-637-LU631-EOH

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 Matthew Pung, a member of Local Union 631.  Mr. Pung alleges that Local Union 631 Business Agents Mac Hamlin and Bill Stroggins violated the Rules by verbally attacking his character and, thus, negatively impacting his candidacy for delegate.  Mr. Pung also alleges that Mr. Hamlin and Mr. Stroggins interfered with an investigation conducted by the Election Office by failing to provide relevant information pertaining to Mr. Pung’s eligibility to run as a delegate.

The Election Officer has previously addressed issues relating to Mr. Pung’s eligibility for delegate.[1]   He was found to be ineligible to run for delegate or alternate delegate to the International convention, and there is no evidence of interference with the Election Officer’s investigation.

Matthew Pung

April 10, 1996

Page 1

As to the allegations of interference with his candidacy, Mr. Pung argues that on several occasions, Mr. Hamlin and Mr. Stroggins made derogatory, slanderous comments concerning him in the presence of fellow IBT members.  These actions impacted Mr. Pung’s candidacy for delegate, he argues, because Mr. Hamlin and Mr. Stroggins belittled him in front of co-workers and also encouraged others to make negative statements of and concerning Mr. Pung. 

Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules guarantees all union members “the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office . . .”

The Election Officer has consistently held that the Rules “do not impose upon candidates the duty to be truthful in their remarks about opposing candidates.”  Landwehr,

P-201-LU795-MOI (November 15, 1995).  As stated in Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996), “[t]he goal to be protected is free speech.”  Thus, neither Mr. Hamlin’s nor Mr. Stroggins’ remarks, even if negative and belittling, violate the Rules.

In consideration of the foregoing, Mr. Pung’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

Glenn Rothner, Associate Regional Coordinator