December 9, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Clifford Chentnik
December 9, 1996
Page 1
Clifford Chentnik
N3066 Apricot Road
Lake Geneva, WI 53147
Brad Stinson
3021 Breezeway Drive
Rockford, IL 61109
Albert “Bruce” Coleman
3123 Coleman Avenue
Rockford, IL 61101
Rick Clingenpeel
5951 Bow Trail
Rockford, IL 61109
Donald Ray
City of Rockford
401 W. State Street
Rockford, IL 61104
Edward Sherman, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 325
5533 11th Street
Rockford, IL 61109
Richard Brook
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Clifford Chentnik
December 9, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1237-LU325-CHI
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
Gentlemen:
Clifford Chentnik
December 9, 1996
Page 1
Clifford Chentnik, a member of Local Union 325, 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”). Among the protester’s contentions was the allegation that Local Union 325 Steward Brad Stinson attempted to coerce Local Union 325 member Albert “Bruce” Coleman into voting for James P. Hoffa for general president in the International officer election.
On November 21, 1996, the Election Officer issued her initial decision in this matter. The decision found as fact that Mr. Coleman received a traffic ticket for a moving violation on October 15, 1996. The Election Officer further found that Mr. Coleman enlisted the assistance of Mr. Stinson in attempting to obtain a day off to appear in court. During a subsequent conversation, Mr. Coleman asserted that Mr. Stinson offered to obtain the assistance of his brother-in-law with the traffic citation. Mr. Stinson represented to
Mr. Coleman that his brother-in-law was the prosecuting attorney. Mr. Coleman also reported that at a later time, Mr. Stinson offered his brother-in-law’s assistance with the ticket on the condition that Mr. Coleman vote for Mr. Hoffa.
Based on this, as well as certain threatening statements made by fellow employee
Rick Clingenpeel, the Election Officer determined that Mr. Coleman’s “right to independently determine how to cast his . . . vote” was interfered with, in violation of Article V, Section 12 of the Rules. The Election Officer further determined that the threatening statements made by Mr. Clingenpeel to Mr. Coleman constituted a further violation of the Rules.
An appeal was taken to the Election Appeals Master and heard by him on
November 27, 1996. By decision dated December 4, 1996, the Election Appeals Master affirmed the Election Officer’s decision in all respects. In Re: Chentnik, 96 - Elec.
App. - 294 (KC) (December 4, 1996).
During the appeal hearing, the Election Appeals Master heard remarks by
Mr. Coleman that several other similar events had occurred since the issuance of the Election Officer’s decision. Mr. Coleman reported that Mr. Stinson’s brother-in-law, Donald Ray, had telephoned Mr. Coleman’s home on November 27, 1996. Mr. Coleman’s daughter took the message, which, according to Mr. Coleman, was that Mr. Ray was “very upset with her Dad.” Mr. Coleman further stated that he had been threatened with the filing of a libel action by Mr. Stinson. The Election Appeals Master ordered the Election Officer’s representative to investigate these post-decision events.
A supplemental investigation was conducted by Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos. Ms. Hamos spoke directly with Mr. Ray on November 27, 1996. Mr. Ray stated that he is an assistant city attorney currently assigned to prosecute traffic tickets. Mr. Ray denies any efforts to assist IBT members with traffic citations. He admits telephoning four or five IBT members, as of the date of the interview, threatening to sue them if they distributed the Election Officer’s decision. He stated to the Regional Coordinator, “If I file a lawsuit, it will include you.”
Regional Coordinator Hamos also spoke with IBT member Larry Clark who reported that he had been telephoned at home by Mr. Ray on November 27, 1996. According to
Mr. Clark, Mr. Ray said that he was calling about a lawsuit he was preparing against “fellows harassing Brad.” He asked Mr. Clark if he had a lawyer.
Clifford Chentnik
December 9, 1996
Page 1
On November 27, 1996, the protester received a message that he had been telephoned by Mr. Ray. The message left with the dispatcher was that Mr. Ray “is an attorney and I have to call him immediately.” As of December 4, 1996, Mr. Chentnik had not returned the call.
Dirk Olson was contacted on December 4, 1996. He states that he received a call from Mr. Ray on December 2, 1996. According to Mr. Olson, Mr. Ray stated that “if you or anyone else passes it out [the Election Officer’s decision], you will be sued.” Mr. Olson
also states that he saw Mr. Clingenpeel in the drivers’ break room on December 3, 1996. According to Mr. Olson, Mr. Clingenpeel said, “You should not be passing out that decision. Julie Hamos can say it’s all right, but I talked to 4 lawyers and we’ll be suing you if you pass it out. I just want you to know.”
According to a supplemental statement made by Mr. Coleman to the Regional Coordinator on November 30, 1996, Mr. Stinson stated that he was consulting a lawyer in order to bring a slander action.
The Rules explicitly provide, at Article XIV, Section 1, 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.” The Election Officer has held that “[t]he right of IBT members to file, free from retaliation, election protests, even protests which are found to be non-meritorious, goes to the heart of the safeguards mandated by the Rules and the Consent Order.” In Re: Sullivan, 95 - Elec.
App. - 2 (KC) (July 14, 1995) (citing Puglisi, P-1074-LU64-ENG (November 25, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 242 (SA) (January 23, 1992), aff’d, 88 Civ. 4486, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. 1992)).
The absolute protections extended to the filing of protests in Article XIV, Section 1 of the Rules also applies to statements made to the Election Officer or her designated representative during the course of a protest investigation. In Petre, P-1036-LU812-NYC (November 14, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 238 (SA) (December 6, 1991), the respondent sued the protester for defamation and malicious prosecution over statements made in an earlier protest filed with the Election Officer. Then-Election Officer Michael Holland ruled that the filing of a protest was absolutely privileged and, thus, the contents of the protest could not be the basis of a lawsuit. His ruling was not only based on the importance of the protest process, but the historical immunity accorded to pleadings before adjudicatory tribunals. See also Hammond, P-098-LU988-PNJ (June 30, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 1 (KC) (July 14, 1995).
Clifford Chentnik
December 9, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer determines on these facts that Mr. Ray has violated Article XIV, Section 1 of the Rules by threatening Messrs. Coleman, Clark, Chentnik and Olson with the filing of a libel action based on their participation in the Election Officer’s investigation or their distribution of the Election Officer’s decision in this case. The Election Officer also determines that Messrs. Stinson and Clingenpeel have failed to comply with the Election Officer’s cease-and-desist order dated November 21, 1996, which directs them to cease and desist from interfering with the right of any IBT member to participate in the International election process.
Both the actions of Mr. Ray and the failure of Messrs. Stinson and Clingenpeel to comply with the Election Officer’s prior order will be referred to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for further action.
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
Karen Konigsberg, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator