January 24, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Larry F. Landwehr
January 24, 1996
Page 1
Larry F. Landwehr
610 Trig
Wichita, KS 67207
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
General Executive Board
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Charles J. Mosqueda
2603 N. 72nd Street
Garden City, KS 67846
Executive Board
Teamsters Local Union 795
4921 Cessna Street
Wichita, KS 67210
Larry F. Landwehr
January 24, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-305-LU795-MOI
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Election ("Rules") by Larry F. Landwehr, a member of Local Union 795, against General President Ron Carey, the IBT General Executive Board (“GEB”), Local Union 795 President Charles J. Mosqueda, and the local union executive board. The protester asserts that the charged parties denied his right to run for delegate by declaring he was not a member in good standing prior to the nomination meeting, in violation of the local union constitution, the IBT constitution, and the Rules. Mr. Landwehr claims that the charged parties were retaliating against him “because of my political opposition to
Ron Carey, TDU and their agenda.”
Larry F. Landwehr
January 24, 1996
Page 1
Local Union 795 responds that the protester could have been nominated for delegate but chose not to run. They also contend that the protester's lack of good standing was based on his actions as the former president of the local union and not on election-related rights protected by the Rules.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Michael D. Gordon.
The protester is the former president of Local Union 795. He was defeated in his bid for reelection by Mr. Mosqueda in October of 1995. Mr. Mosqueda and the current local union executive board assumed office on January 1, 1996.
By letter dated January 3, 1996, newly-elected Secretary-Treasurer Charles R. Barshney informed Mr. Landwehr that “there have been several irregularities during your tenure as president of Teamsters Union Local 795 for which were are seeking reimburse-ment.” According to the letter, Mr. Landwehr permitted the union hall to be utilized by several church groups, and made use of the office staff's time as well as the union’s copying machines for these groups, all without seeking approval from the membership. Mr. Barshney further alleged that the protester paid a local union business agent for 11½ sick days during 1995 when the contract provided for five days annually. Mr. Barshney demanded that
Mr. Landwehr reimburse Local Union 795 in the amount of $2,668.60 for these unauthorized expenditures. The letter concluded: “Until these monies are paid you will not be considered a member in good standing by Teamsters Local 795, by order of the Executive Board.”
Mr. Landwehr states that he received this letter on January 10, 1996. The following day, Mr. Landwehr filed his protest with the Election Office. Alleging that General President Carey was involved in a variety of ways with the recent election in Local Union 795,[1] the protester asserted that Mr. Carey and the GEB “closely influenced and controlled the actions of Chuck Mosqueda and the new Local 795 Executive Board.”[2]
Larry F. Landwehr
January 24, 1996
Page 1
The nomination meeting for Local Union 795 was scheduled for Saturday, January 13, 1996. On January 12, Mr. Landwehr contacted the Regional Coordinator and informed him of his protest. Mr. Landwehr expressed his intention to run for delegate and stated that he feared he would not be permitted to attend the nomination meeting or, if he did, to be nominated for delegate. The Regional Coordinator stated that he would speak with the local union to ensure Mr. Landwehr’s right to be nominated. He also advised the protester to fax, as a back-up measure, a written nomination, second and acceptance to the Regional Coordinator and the local union by 5:00 p.m. that day, in accordance with the Rules. Mr. Landwehr did not fax the suggested documents to either the local union or the Regional Coordinator.
Prior to the meeting, the Regional Coordinator contacted Mr. Mosqueda who assured him that there would be no interference with Mr. Landwehr attending the meeting and being nominated for delegate. According to the Regional Coordinator, “[t]here was no indication during our discussion that Mosqueda ever intended otherwise.” The Regional Coordinator advised Mr. Landwehr and Mr. Mosqueda that he would conduct the nomination meeting as if the January 3 letter to Mr. Landwehr and his subsequent protest had never happened.
Mr. Landwehr attended the nomination meeting on January 13. Before opening nominations, the Regional Coordinator informed the members present that any challenges to a nominee’s eligibility would not be decided at the meeting. He further stated, “If someone on a slate is found to be ineligible, remaining slate members are unaffected.”
The protester was not nominated for delegate during the nomination meeting and did not attempt to make any statements. There was no mention either before or during the meeting of Secretary-Treasurer Barshney’s January 3 letter to Mr. Landwehr. Two members who served as officers with Mr. Landwehr were nominated for delegate and, along with two candidates for alternate delegate, formed a slate opposed to the full slate headed by
Mr. Mosqueda.
In subsequent discussions with the Regional Coordinator, the protester stated that he was reluctant to run for delegate on a slate because should he be declared ineligible, that would create a partial slate which could not compete against a full slate.
Following the receipt of the January 3 letter stating that he was not a member in good standing, Mr. Landwehr may have assumed that he could not be nominated for a delegate or alternate delegate position. Prior to the nominations meeting, however, the Regional Coordinator informed Mr. Landwehr that he intended to run the meeting as if the January 3 letter had never been written. Mr. Mosqueda stated he had no intention of interfering with Mr. Landwehr’s right to attend the meeting or to be nominated. Moreover, Mr. Landwehr had no problem entering the meeting, nor was anything said prior to the start of nominations regarding his eligibility to run for delegate. On the contrary, the Regional Coordinator announced to the members present that eligibility challenges would not be decided at the nominations meeting and that a subsequent finding of ineligibility would not affect the candidate's slate.[3]
Larry F. Landwehr
January 24, 1996
Page 1
In spite of several assurances from the Regional Coordinator, Mr. Landwehr decided not to run for delegate. The Election Officer finds that he made this decision independently without interference from the charged parties. Being nominated does not insulate
Mr. Landwehr from a protest of his eligibility as a candidate. However, Mr. Landwehr made the decision not to defend his eligibility against a possible protest, the outcome of which would be decided by the Election Officer, not the local union. Thus, Mr. Landwehr’s right to run for delegate was not denied by the local union’s actions.
Mr. Landwehr has also charged Mr. Carey and the GEB with closely influencing the local union charged parties. Since the Election Officer has not found that Mr. Mosqueda or the local union executive board violated the Rules, and no evidence has been presented demonstrating any independent violations by Mr. Carey or the GEB, the Election Officer finds these allegations to be without merit.
Accordingly, 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.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Michael D. Gordon, Regional Coordinator
[1]One action particularly objected to by the protester was Mr. Carey's appointment of a personal representative on November 3, 1995 to assist Local Union 795 in the transition to new officers. Following the election on October 19, 1995, the defeated executive board of the local union voted to overturn the election. By letter dated November 3, Mr. Carey directed
Mr. Landwehr to revoke this action and advised him to utilize the proper internal procedures for challenging the election. Mr. Landwehr's subsequent election protest was denied by Mr. Carey on December 6. Mr. Landwehr has appealed this decision to the GEB and is awaiting its ruling.
[2]Mr. Landwehr filed an earlier protest with the Election Office, P-201-LU795-MOI (November 15, 1995), in which he alleged violations of the Rules by Mr. Mosqueda and
Mr. Carey in the campaign for local union president. The Election Officer denied the protest.
[3]This, of course, does not mean that a member at the nomination meeting could not have protested Mr. Landwehr’s eligibility as a candidate, nominator or person seconding nominations. See Rules, Article XIV, Section 2(b)(1).