October 21, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Ken Mee
October 21, 1996
Page 1
Ken Mee
42356 Greenbrier Park Drive
Fremont, CA 94538
Chuck Mack, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 70
150 Executive Park Boulevard
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94134
Marty Frates
Teamsters Local Union 70
150 Executive Park Boulevard
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94134
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Ken Mee
October 21, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-999-LU70-CSF
Gentlemen:
Ken Mee, a member of Local Union 70 and a candidate for International vice president filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that Local Union 70 Business Representative Marty Frates campaigned for James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, at grievance hearings in San Diego, California while employers were present.
Mr. Frates responds that Mr. Mee was not in attendance at the grievance hearings in San Diego and that Mr. Frates is not aware of what Mr. Mee is referring to in his protest.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross.
Ken Mee
October 21, 1996
Page 1
Shortly after this protest was docketed by the Election Office, the Regional Coordinator spoke with Mr. Mee by telephone. During this conversation, Mr. Mee indicated that he desired to withdraw this protest. On October 10, 1996, the Regional Coordinator sent
Mr. Mee a letter stating that he should send his written withdrawal to the Election Office or submit any witnesses or evidence he may have supporting the protest to the Regional Coordinator by Monday, October 14, 1996. Mr. Mee did not respond to this letter and has not supplied any evidence to support his protest.
Article XIV, Section 1 of the Rules places the burden on the complainants “to present evidence that a violation has occurred.” Further, the Election Appeals Master has stated that the protester bears the initial burden of proof to offer evidence substantiating the allegations. In Re: Chentnik, 95 - Elec. App. - 52 (KC) (January 10, 1996). The protester has failed to meet this burden.
Accordingly, 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:
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
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator