 |
|
|
|
IN RE: TED BUNSTINE, Protestor. Ted Bunstine, a member of Local Union 174, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2005-2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). He alleged that the local union violated the Rules by granting local president Dianne Bolton paid time off and travel expenses to attend the TDU convention. Election Supervisor representative Christine Mrak investigated this protest. Findings of Fact TDU held its annual convention November 3 through 6. Dianne Bolton attended. The protestor contends that the local union paid Bolton’s lost time and travel expenses to attend. Investigation showed that the local union did not request that Bolton’s employer, UPS, grant her union leave on the dates in question. Rather, Bolton requested and received personal time off from her employer. Further, the only payments the local union made to Bolton in November and December 2005 were for lost time associated with a November 7 benefits meeting and a November 10 executive board meeting, and monthly stipends. Bolton did not request reimbursement for, and the local union did not pay, her expenses associated with her attendance at the TDU convention. The protestor offered no evidence to contradict these facts or otherwise substantiate his allegation. Rather, he states that he filed the protest because Dan Scott, the local union’s principal officer, stated in December 2005 that he could not recall whether he had requested that UPS grant Bolton time off. Analysis Article VII, Section 11(c) of the Rules prohibits use of union funds to assist in campaigning. Further, Article XI, Section 1(b)(3) bars a union from contributing to a candidate, “directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate …” To establish a violation of these provisions in this case, the evidence must
demonstrate that the local union paid some or all of the lost time or travel
expenses Bolton incurred in attending the TDU convention and that such
expenditure(s) constitute a campaign contribution under the Rules. The evidence
proves neither required element, and we therefore DENY the protest. The utter lack of evidence on the first element is sufficient to dispose of this protest. We note, however, that past decisions have held that local unions did not violate the Rules by paying the lost time and travel expenses associated with their members’ attendance at annual TDU conventions. In Taylor, 2000 EAD 75 (December 29, 2000), aff’d 01 EAM 16 (February 8, 2001), Election Administrator Wertheimer found that a local union properly paid lost time and travel expenses for its members who attended the TDU convention, observing that “[u]nion funds may be utilized to pay the expenses of a trip undertaken for union business even if incidental campaign activity occurs during the period of travel. See, e.g., Del Pizzo, P727 (July 18, 1991).” Election Officer Cherkasky reached a similar result in Hoffa, PR 39 (March 10, 1998), aff’d, 98 EAM 341 (April 9, 1998). Each of these decisions rested on the factual finding “that a substantial part of the events held at the convention were nonpolitical and educational in nature.” 01 EAM 16, p. 4. Thus, weighing the campaign-related activity against that determined to be non-campaign-related, the 1997 TDU convention was found to be only 14.5% campaign-related, the 1998 convention 21%, and the 2000 convention 20.5%. On these facts, “such campaigning as did occur … was incidental to the legitimate union business conducted there concerning the non-electoral affairs of the union and activists involved in it.” Taylor, supra. We have not quantified the portion of the 2005 TDU convention that was campaign-related because the disposition of this protest makes it unnecessary to do so. However, the protest’s contention – that union funding of lost time and travel expenses for attendance at the TDU convention a fortiori constitutes an impermissible campaign contribution by that union – has consistently been rejected. Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal and shall be served upon: Kenneth Conboy Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as
upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 1400, Washington, D.C. 20007-5135, all within the
time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for
hearing. Richard W. Mark cc: Kenneth Conboy DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED): Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel Sarah Riger, Staff Attorney David J. Hoffa Barbara Harvey Ken Paff Judith Brown Chomsky Stefan Ostrach Ted Bunstine Dan Scott, Secretary-Treasurer Christine Mrak Jeffrey Ellison
|
|
|
