January 25, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Glen Prestridge & W. Harold Simmons
January 25, 1996
Page 1
Glen Prestridge
P.O. Box 655
Piedmont, AL 36272
W. Harold Simmons, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 612
50 Bagby Drive
Birmingham, AL 35209
Shelley A. Jesses
110 Turquoise Trail
Atlanta, GA 30349
Ralph P. O’Neal
1512 Jade Street
Prattville, AL 36067
Glen Prestridge & W. Harold Simmons
January 25, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-300-LU612-SEC
P-301-LU612-SEC
Gentlemen:
Related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
Glen Prestridge, a member of Local Union 612, and W. Harold Simmons, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 612. Because these protests raise identical legal and factual claims, they were consolidated by the Election Officer.
The protests were filed against Shelley A. Jesses and Ralph P. O’Neal, members of the local union and candidates for delegate to the International convention. The protesters assert that Mr. Jesses and Mr. O’Neal improperly accepted their nominations because each submitted a written acceptance prior to the nomination meeting to the Election Officer only, rather than to the local union with a copy to the Election Officer or her representative, as required by Article II, Section 5(g) of the Rules.[1] In P-301-LU612-SEC, the protesters also cite the actions of Adjunct Regional Coordinator Maureen Geraghty, who permitted the acceptance of the nominations of Messrs. Jesses and O’Neal at the nomination meeting.
Glen Prestridge & W. Harold Simmons
January 25, 1996
Page 1
Charged parties Jesses and O’Neal respond that they complied with the Rules as they understood them, and that the other candidates for delegate were not disadvantaged by their submission of written acceptances to the representative of the Election Officer only.
The investigation of these protests was supervised by Election Office Protest Chief Benetta Mansfield.
Article II, Section 5(g) states as follows:
A member shall accept his/her nomination either in person at the meeting, or, if absent from the meeting, by furnishing a written acceptance of nomination in advance of the meeting either to the Local Union or to another member who, present at the nomination meeting, produces it at the time the member is nominated. If furnished to the Local Union, a copy of this written acceptance of nomination should also be submitted to the Election Officer or her representative no later than
5 p.m. of the day immediately prior to the day of the relevant nomination meeting.
Local Union 612 held its nomination meeting on January 6, 1996. It is undisputed that Mr. Jesses and Mr. O’Neal submitted timely written acceptances of nomination to the Adjunct Regional Coordinator but not to the local union. Mr. O’Neal did not plan to attend the meeting as he and his wife were expecting a baby on that date and Mr. Jesses could not be present due to his wife’s hospitalization.
At the nomination meeting, the Adjunct Regional Coordinator announced that she had received nominations, seconds, and acceptances in writing from Mr. Jesses and Mr. O’Neal for delegate, each running independently. Another member was nominated as an independent candidate and other members were nominated as part of a slate of candidates for delegate and alternate delegate.
The protesters correctly state that the charged parties did not comply with Article II, Section 5(g) because the written acceptance was not submitted to the local union or presented by a member attending the meeting. Thus, the charged parties have technically violated the Rules.
Article I of the Rules states that the Election Officer is charged with “the conduct of fair, honest, open and informed elections,” and has the authority “"to take all necessary actions in supervising the election process to insure fair, honest, open and informed elections.”
Measured against the scope of the Election Officer's authority set forth in Article I the Election Officer finds that it does not serve the underlying purpose of the Rules or the Consent Decree if Mr. Jesses and Mr. O’Neal were to be barred from running for delegate. While there is no question they should have submitted their acceptances to the local union or a member attending the meeting, both members had compelling reasons for not attending the nomination
Glen Prestridge & W. Harold Simmons
January 25, 1996
Page 1
meeting. There is no indication of any attempt by the nominees or their supporters to undermine the nomination of delegates in Local Union 612.
Furthermore, the Election Officer notes that the Rules for submitting written nominations and seconds under Article II, Section 5(f) instructs members to send these to the Election Officer or her representative. Since another procedure is set forth for accepting nominations under Article II, Section 5(g), this could understandably cause some confusion.
Finally, the submission of the written acceptances to the Adjunct Regional Coordinator rather than to Local Union 612 or another member did not disadvantage the other candidates or adversely affect the nomination process. As stated above, four other candidates were nominated for delegate and an election will take place, in accordance with the Rules.
For the reasons set forth above, the Election Officer holds that Mr. Jesses and Mr. O’Neal are eligible to run for delegate and the protests are 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.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Maureen Geraghty, Adjunct Regional Coordinator
[1] The protesters also cite the local union's Nomination Notice and Plan Summary for Election of Delegates, both of which set forth the requirements of Section 5(g).