IN RE: KATHERINE KLECKNER,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 112
Issued: January 31, 2001 (Corrected)
OEA Case No. PR011515MW
Katherine Kleckner, a member of Local 743, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). Kleckner alleges that Local 743 and Julie Hamos violated Article II, Sections 6(a) and 4(f) of the Rules by improperly posting the results of the local union's delegate nomination meeting by omitting the name of the 743 New Leadership slate (the "New Leadership slate") on the posting, by failing to include on the posting a statement that it was an official notice, and by failing to print the posting on local union letterhead.
Election Administrator representative Jason Weidenfeld investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
Local 743 is a large local, with approximately 15,000 members. Hamos is an attorney retained by the local to assist with its delegate and alternate delegate nomination and election process. Hamos conducted the local union's nomination meeting on January 3, 2001. At that meeting, alleges Kleckner, the campaign manager of the New Leadership slate in that election, Hamos stated that nomination meeting results would be printed for posting after she had received slate declaration forms from all parties. Hamos, however, denies stating this.
Hamos had not yet arranged for the posting of nomination meeting results as of the morning of January 8, 2001. At that time, she spoke with Election Administrator Regional Director Dennis Sarsany. Hamos told Sarsany that she expected to receive slate declaration forms from two slates and wanted to wait for these slates before posting. Sarsany explained that the Rules require posting within five days of the nomination meeting (i.e., by January 8, 2001). In response, Hamos sent the nomination meeting results to the local for printing and posting immediately. Hamos did not instruct the Local to print the results on the Local's letterhead. It did not.
The posted results did not include any slate designations other than the Hoffa 743 Take Back Slate. That slate's declaration form had been submitted to Hamos at the nomination meeting. (Local 743 secretary-treasurer Robert Walston is a delegate candidate on that slate.) Local 743 began printing copies of the nomination meeting results immediately on January 8, 2001 -- at around 3 p.m. -- according to Gladys Yant, a local union secretary who oversaw the printing and distribution of the results. Immediately after printing the results, they were distributed to business agents for posting, according to Yant. Posting actually occurred during the week of January 8, 2001, with all, or nearly all, posting occurring between January 8, 2001 and January 10, 2001.
After 4:00 p.m. on January 8, 2001, Hamos received the 743 New Leadership Slate declaration form. She accepted the slate's form but did not request that the local reprint the nomination meeting results.
Kleckner alleges that the posted results of the nomination meeting should have included all slate names/affiliations and should have been printed on Local 743's letterhead.
Kleckner proposes as a remedy that the results of the nomination meeting be re-posted without the names of candidates on the Hoffa 743 Take Back Slate. She has also requested the posting of a notice stating that current Local 743 officers were to blame for the incorrect original posting.
Analysis
Article II, Section 6(a) of the Rules require that nomination results be posted "as soon as possible, but in no event later than five days following the nomination meeting…" The nomination meeting here was held on January 3, 2001. The local union commenced posting the nomination meeting results within the prescribed time.
Hamos was not required to delay the posting of the results of the nomination meeting until all slates were known. The Rules do not require that this posting must include slate affiliations, except "if known at the time." Id. The Rules thus clearly contemplate the posting of nomination meeting results before candidates declare a slate affiliation. The failure of the notice to refer to the New Leadership was not contrary to the Rules, and we thus DENY that portion of the protest.
The notice did, however, violate Article II, Section 4(f) of the Rules, which requires that, [e]xcept where otherwise provided by the Rules, every posting by the Union on Union bulletin boards required by [the] Rules shall be on Union letterhead that has no names of Union officers, business agents, staff or the like." The failure to use Local 743 letterhead for the posting of the results of the nomination meeting requires that this aspect of the protest be GRANTED.
Remedy
When the Election Administrator determines that the Rules have been violated, he "may take whatever remedial action is appropriate." Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Administrator views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
In this case, neither Hamos nor Local 743 intended to circumvent the Rules. In addition, due to the pendency of eligibility protests that have resulted in certain nominated candidates being found ineligible, see Straughter, 2001 EAD 103 (January 25, 2001), a reposting of the results of the nomination meeting must occur under the second paragraph of Article II, Section 6(c) of the Rules. The failure of Hamos to instruct Local 743 to post the results of the nomination meeting on local union letterhead may be cured by the printing and posting of that revised notice on letterhead.
The revised notice should state a slate identification for the New Leadership slate. In addition, we shall order Local 743 to cease and desist from failing to comply with Article II, Section 4(f) of the Rules, by failing to post all notices under the Rules on local union letterhead.
An order of the Election Administrator, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. Lopez, 96 EAM 73.
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 Administrator 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
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
Suite 1000
885 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Fax: 212-751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 727 15th Street NW, Tenth Floor, Washington, DC 20005, all within the time period prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Election Administrator
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2001 EAD 112
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA UPS NEXT DAY AIR:
Patrick Szymanski
IBT General Counsel
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
J. Douglas Korney
Korney & Heldt
30700 Telegraph Road
Suite 1551
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Barbara Harvey
Penobscot Building
Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
Suite 800
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach
110 Mayfair
Eugene, OR 97404
IBT Local 743
300 S. Ashland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60607
Katherine Kleckner
5013 S. Ridgway Avenue
Chicago, IL 60632
Julie Hamos
203 N. Wabash
Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60601
Dennis Sarsany
1829 Eddy Street
Chicago, IL 60657