 |
|
|
|
IN RE: DONALD RAY HARDISON, Protestor. (See also Election Appeals Master decision 06 EAM 28) Donald Ray Hardison, a member of Local Union 822, 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 asserted that James Wright, President of Local 822, used his position as local union president to campaign from the podium during the March 11, 2006 general membership meeting. Election Supervisor representative J. Griffin Morgan investigated this protest. Findings of Fact The delegate election in Local Union 822 is a contest between two slates. The Wright/West slate consists of local union officers and is headed by local union president James Wright. The Rank and File slate consists of local union members and is headed by Donald Ray Hardison. The ballots were mailed on February 23, 2006 and are scheduled to be counted on March 31, 2006. In Protest Decision 2006 ESD 115 (February 27, 2006), the Election Supervisor determined that President Wright violated Article VII, Section 5 of the Rules by making disparaging remarks about his opponent from the podium during the February 11, 2006 general membership meeting, without providing his political opposition an equal pre-planned opportunity to campaign. The Election Supervisor ordered Wright to cease and desist from using his union position to campaign from the podium during union meetings without offering an equal opportunity to all other candidates. The Election Supervisor also ordered that Wright post on all union bulletin boards a Notice that contained the following language:
At the next membership meeting held on March 11, 2006, Wright spent between 5 and 10 minutes speaking from the podium about the 2002 dues increase. Wright explained that the Carey administration tried to raise members’ dues but that the dues increase was voted down by the membership. Wright told the membership meeting that the IBT then closed the Conferences in order to save money. Wright then explained why he supported the last increase in membership dues. Wright also explained how a member’s dues were calculated. Wright also mentioned that he voted twice for Ron Carey. During these remarks from the podium, Wright stated that he spoke about dues because recently he had been getting questions from members about a dues increase. He further stated that he had received the questions as a direct result of the Rank and File slate’s campaign material opposing a dues increase, acknowledging that it was a major issue in the Rank and File slate’s campaign materials. Wright further stated that he was explaining his position on the dues increase at that particular membership meeting only because the dues increase had become a campaign issue. Wright stated that he had not received questions about the dues during the membership meeting. There were 35 members at the membership meeting. The minutes of the
membership meeting contain an abbreviated version of Wright's comments on
membership dues. Analysis The Rules govern candidate access to membership meetings and the opportunity to campaign during a meeting. Article VII, Section 5(a)(3) and (4) provide the following:
The Rules thus set forth campaigning procedures for union meetings which are non-discriminatory and require pre-planning. Opportunities to campaign at any union meeting must be made equally available to all candidates with advance notice. Weronke, P306 (January 31, 1996); Kapitula, P1104 (November 22, 1991). Otherwise, any campaigning at union meetings violates the Rules. Wigley, P668 (April 18, 1996)(disparaging opposition from podium during union meeting constitutes illegal campaigning). In this case, Wright, a candidate for delegate, spoke from the podium in
response to campaign literature circulated by the slate he opposes. Wright
admitted that he would not have spoken at the membership meeting on the subject
of dues increases had they not been made a campaign issue by his political
opponents. Accordingly, his presentation explaining his support for the last
dues increase constituted campaigning during the union meeting, and such
campaigning violated the Rules because it was carried out without offering
opportunity, on advance notice, for all candidates to exercise the identical
right to campaign from the podium at the same meeting. Accordingly, we GRANT this protest. Remedy When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process. In Hardison, 2006 ESD 115 (February 27, 2006), appeal withdrawn, 06 EAM 20 (March 8, 2006), we found that Wright had committed the identical Rules violation we find he committed here. In the prior case, we ordered Wright “to cease and desist from using his union position to campaign from the podium during union meetings without offering an equal opportunity to all other candidates and giving advance written notice of that opportunity, as required by the Rules.”1 Wright not only has repeated the same Rules violation in this case, he has violated our order that he cease and desist from such improper activity. Under Article I of the Rules, we are enjoined to take all necessary action “to ensure fair, honest, open and informed elections.” The remedy we imposed in the prior case was fashioned to “(a) to achieve political balance and fairness in the wake of an advantage accruing to one side as a result of a violation; (b) to broadly inform the rank and file of the meaning, interpretation and application of the Rules; (c) to strengthen the protest procedure, its credibility, and the institutions of electoral democracy throughout the IBT; and (d) to deter intentional or inadvertent violations of the Rules, thus promoting broad respect for the IBT, raising the consciousness and pride of the rank and file, and reducing future protest cases throughout the election cycle.” Richards, 00 EAM 1 (August 14, 2000), affirming 2000 EAD 5 (August 1, 2000). By repeating his violation a mere 12 days later, Wright destroyed three of the four objectives of the remedy we had imposed. We do not take disregard of our remedial authority lightly. Accordingly, we impose the following remedy:
A decision of the Election Supervisor takes immediate effect unless stayed. Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996). 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
1 We also ordered Wright to post a notice of his violation.
NOTICE TO TEAMSTERS MEMBERS FROM
|
|
|
