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















December 5, 1995




Michael D. Torpey

December 5, 1995

Page 1



Michael D. Torpey

1017 S.E. 30th Avenue

Portland, OR 97214


Tony L. Andrews, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 305

1870 N.E. 162nd Avenue

Portland, OR 97230


Michael D. Torpey

December 5, 1995

Page 1



Re:  Election Office Case No. P-230-LU305-PNW             




A pre-election protest was filed on November 6, 1995 pursuant to Article XIV,

Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-96 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (Rules) by Michael D. Torpey, a member of Local Union 305 who was a candidate for alternate delegate on the Working Teamsters slate.  The protester alleges improper use of union resources by Tony Andrews, Local Union 305 secretary-treasurer and a candidate on the Team 305 slate which opposed the Working Teamsters.  The protester alleges that on

November 2, 1995, Mr. Andrews used Local Union 305 letterhead to file an appeal of Torpey, Case No. P-162-LU305-PNW (October 31, 1995)  (Torpey I”),[1] and Local Union 305 business agents working on union time to serve the appeal.



Michael D. Torpey

December 5, 1995

Page 1



Ballots were counted in the Local Union 305 delegate election on September 21, 1995.


Mr. Andrews responds that the protest is untimely.  He contends that the protest is a post-election protest which, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 3 of the Rules, must be filed within three working days of the posting of the official delegate election tally sheet.  As to the merits,

Mr. Andrews argues that because Local Union 305 was ordered by the Election Officer to post a notice as the remedy in Torpey I, it was proper for the local union to use its letterhead and personnel to appeal the decision.     


This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Christine M. Mrak


I.              Timeliness


The Rules, at Article XIV, Section 2(b), state, "Except as otherwise provided . . . all preelection protests . . . must be filed within two (2) working days of the day the protester becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived."


Mr. Andrews argues that the three-working-day time limit set forth in Article XIV, Section 3 pertaining to post-election protests is applicable here.  A post-election protest must satisfy the requirement in Article IV, Section 3(b) of the Rules, which provides:  “[Post-election] protests shall only be considered and remedied if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election . . .”


  The protester here is not seeking to overturn the Local Union 305 delegate election, a remedy permitted as post-election relief.  Instead, he seeks a remedy that will ensure that local union resources are not used improperly, a prohibition which applies to the upcoming International officer elections and thus, continues after the delegate election. It makes no sense to apply the post-election protest standard here to determine whether the use of union resources on November 2, 1995 affected the outcome of the September 21, 1995 delegate election.  The Election Officer has properly treated the protest as a pre-election protest.  The protest, filed within two working days of the appeal dated November 2, 1995, is therefore timely.


II.              Use of Union Resources


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.


Michael D. Torpey

December 5, 1995

Page 1



While the Rules do prohibit such campaign contributions by a union, they do not prohibit union contributions in support of resolving protests, clarifying the Rules, or otherwise furthering the fundamental goals of fair, honest and open elections.  See Powers, P-229-LU1150-EOH (November 9, 1995);  Scalf, P-097-LU705-CHI ( August 16, 1995);  Lally, Case No.

P-167-LU378-SCE (January 4, 1991), affd, 90 - Elec. App. - 36 (SA) (January 14, 1991).  Therefore, Mr. Andrews’ use of the local union's stationery and personnel to appeal the protest is not violative of the Rules, assuming that such resources would be available to all Local Union 305 members on a nondiscriminatory basis.  There is no allegation or evidence that the local union's resources could not be used by all local members for processing protests.


Based on 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.

Latham and 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.






Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer



cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Christine M. Mrak, Regional Coordinator


[1]Torpey I was a pre-election protest alleging violations of the Rules by Local Union 305 and by the protester’s employer.  Torpey I was withdrawn by the Election Officer and reissued in Torpey, Case No. P-162-LU305-PNW (November 27, 1995) (decision on remand), which held the allegations were time-barred.