Carlow Scalf
August 16, 1995
Page 2
August 16, 1995
Carlow Scalf
August 16, 1995
Page 2
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Carlow Scalf
10178 Lakeside Drive
Whitelake, MI 48386
Carlow Scalf
August 16, 1995
Page 2
Gerald Zero, Secretary-Treasurer
IBT Local Union 705
1645 West Jackson
Chicago, IL 60612
RE: Election Office Case No. P-097-LU705-CHI
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). By letter dated June 21, 1995, Carlow Scalf, a member of Local Union 337, charged Gerald Zero, Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 705, with using union resources to file “politically-motivated” protests in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules.
Specifically, Mr. Scalf alleges that Mr. Zero used union-owned stationary, typewriter, facsimile machine and secretarial services to file three protests with the Election Officer.[1]
In response, Mr. Zero admits union resources were utilized in filing the protests with the Election Officer, but asserts this conduct is not campaigning in violation of the Rules.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos.
Mr. Scalf states that Mr. Zero did not act on behalf of Local Union 705 when he filed the protests because he did not receive approval of the Local Union Executive Board. Therefore, his filing of the protests using Local Union stationery and resources did not fall within the protected parameters of Article IX, Section 1.
Carlow Scalf
August 16, 1995
Page 2
Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) reads, in relevant part, “No union funds or other things of value shall be used, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual. Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in
campaigns . . .” The use of union equipment, supplies or personnel to promote candidacy or a campaign is therefore prohibited under the Rules.
The filing of a protest, however, is protected, and does not constitue support for a candidate or campaigning under the Rules. Thus, Article IX, Section 1 of the Rules reads, “Any member, Local Union or other subordinate body of the International Union or the International Union may file a protest with the Election Officer alleging noncomplicance with the Rules, free from retaliation or threat of retaliation by any person or entity for such filing . . .”
There are no restrictions concerning the protected right to file protests under Article XIV, Section 1. Mr. Zero’s actions therefore were not prohibited campaign activity in violation of the Rules.
Based upon the foregoing, the protest is DENIED.
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.
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
Carlow Scalf
August 16, 1995
Page 2
Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos
[1] The Election Office protests referred to by Mr. Scalf are P-054-LU705-EOH, P-078-LU337-EOH and P-079-LU714-PNJ.