October 26, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Gary L. Gregory
10815 Bakeway Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46231
John Neal, President
Teamsters Local Union 135
1233 Shelby Street
Indianapolis, IN 46203
Re: Election Office Case No. P-191-LU135-SCE
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-96 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Gary L. Gregory, a member of Local Union 135. The protester alleges that Local Union 135 President John Neal intends to use union funds, in violation of the Rules, to pay the expenses of a "group of guests" that will accompany the local union’s official delegation to the International convention.
Mr. Gregory also requests that Local Union 135's delegate election be postponed because, according to the protester, the Local Union's officer election will be declared invalid and ordered re-run. The protester expresses concern that the delegate election will interfere with the re-run of the local union officer election.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
The Rules, at Article XII, Section 1(b)(3), prohibit the use of union funds or resources to "promote the candidacy of any individual" without a provision of equal access and compensation at fair-market value.
Gary L. Gregory
October 26, 1995
Page 1
The Rules, however, do not specifically prohibit the payment of guest attendance expenses at the International convention. Nor has the protester demonstrated that the proposal to pay guest expenses is intended to support the candidacy of any individual. Instead, the protester seems to contend that individuals whose expenses are paid under this scheme will not be guests of the local union’s elected delegation but of the local union president for the purpose of "personal patronage."
During the last International officer election, the Election Officer issued an Advisory Regarding Convention Expenses ("Advisory") which provided in relevant part:
[I]t will be considered a misuse of Union funds for the Local Union to pay the expenses of spouses or family members attending the Convention. This prohibition does not extend to the expenses of guests (subject to the limitation and requirements noted herein), whose attendance is reasonably related to the business of the Convention, such as retiree representatives of Union members with designated duties and responsibilities in connection with the proceedings of the Convention, or with official Union meetings held attendant to the Convention. The prohibition does, however, extend to the spouses or family members of such guests.
See also MacDonald, Case No. P-324-LU490-CSF (January 31, 1994) (guest expenses do not violate the Rules so long as expenses of delegates and alternate delegates are also paid); Ferguson, Case No. P-817-LU377-CLE (August 6, 1991) (expenses paid for newly appointed business agents to attend the Convention for educational purposes do not violate Rules); Reed, Case No. P-1051-LU26-SCE (November 12, 1991) (A local union may pay the expenses of its alternate candidate even if a provision to pay such expenses was not in the local union’s election plan, and the local union may pay other guests’ expenses if the alternate’s expenses are paid). The Election Officer has reviewed the Advisory and finds that the policy set forth therein concerning guest expenses should be applied to the 1996 International convention.
In this case, however, there is no evidence that Mr. Neal "intends" to use union funds to pay expenses of guests to the convention. The Rules, therefore, have not yet been violated nor has Mr. Neal demonstrated an intent to violate them.
The protester also petitions the Election Officer to postpone the date of Local
Union 135's delegate election because it might conflict with a possible re-run of the local union’s officer election. The proposed election plan submitted by the local union has yet to be approved, and thus Local Union 135's delegate election has not been formally scheduled. Moreover, there is no evidence that the local union officer election will be re-run, and thus the request by the protester is denied.
Gary L. Gregory
October 26, 1995
Page 1
For the foregoing reasons, 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.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
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: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator