This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

July 28, 1995

 

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT


David L. Dethrow

July 28, 1995

Page 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


David L. Dethrow

July 28, 1995

Page 1

 

David L. Dethrow

2843 Radnor

St. Charles, MO 63301

 

Joseph A. Galli, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 688

300 South Grand Avenue

St. Louis, MO  63103


Rich Schildknecht, President

Teamsters Local Union 688

300 South Grand Avenue

St. Louis, MO  63103

 


David L. Dethrow

July 28, 1995

Page 1

 

 


David L. Dethrow

July 28, 1995

Page 1

 

Re:              Election Office Case No. P-036-LU688-PNJ

 

Gentlemen:

 

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2 (a) of the Rules for


David L. Dethrow

July 28, 1995

Page 1

 

the 1995-1996 I.B.T. International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).[1] The protester, David L. Dethrow, a member of Local Union 688, by letter dated May 23, 1995, alleges that the March-April 1994 issue of the Local Union newsletter, 688 Today, constituted campaigning against General President Ron Carey. 

 

The union’s responds that the newspaper was not used for campaigning, and the articles contained in the March-April issue represented a long-standing tradition of free expression under the union.

 

The protest investigation was conducted by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr.

 

The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 8(a), provide the following prohibition, “No publication or communication financed, directly or indirectly, by a Union may be used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person . . .”  Section 8(a) also sets forth specific illustrations of improper support of a candidate by a Union-financed publication.

 

A Union-financed publication does not violate the Rules unless the subject of the printed matter was a “candidate” at the time it is published.  Ruscigno, P-067-LU20-EOH (July 19, 1995).[2]  It does not appear that Mr. Carey was a candidate within the meaning of the Rules at the time of this publication.  See, Ruscigno, P-065-JC37-EOH (July 21, 1995).

 

Moreover, the March-April issue of 688 Today contains an only one article which directly addresses Mr. Carey and his administration. The article is entitled “UPS Update” and contains a reference to the Local Union’s Executive Board’s disappointment with Mr. Carey.  The  publication makes no mention of the IBT election or the candidacy of any union member and is too remote from the 1996 International officer elections to be considered campaign activity.  The protested material was of interest to the membership.  The Local Union may express opinions on the manner in which incumbent officers conduct affairs of the union.  See, United Steelworkers v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 102, 112  (1982); Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F.2d 445, 448-49 (2nd Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 946 (1963).

 

Based on the foregoing, the protest is DENIED. 

 


David L. Dethrow

July 28, 1995

Page 1

 

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master may be requested 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.

Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon

180 Maiden Lane, 36th Floor

New York, NY 10038

fax (212) 248-2655

 

Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile

(202) 624-3525.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.

 

Sincerely,

 

Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer

 

 

cc:              Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy

Peter V. Marks Sr., Regional Coordinator


[1]This “reach-back” protest was filed within the thirty day period following the final promulgation of the Rules on April 24, 1995, and alleges violations occurring prior to the issuance of the Rules.  The Rules at Article XIV, Section 2(a), state:

 

Protests regarding violations of the [Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, as amended] (including violations of the IBT Constitution) allegedly occurring prior to the date of issuance of the Rules and protests regarding any conduct allegedly occurring within the first twenty-eight (28) days after issuance of the Rules must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance, or such protests shall be waived.

[2]Under the Rules, “candidate” is defined as:

 

[A]ny member who is actively seeking nomination or election for any Convention delegate position or International Officer position.  The term includes any member who has accepted any campaign contribution as defined by the Rules or made any expenditure, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution or expenditure is to influence the election of that member to any such position.