Protest Decisions

January 30, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

K. Ruth Hamada

January 30, 1996

Page 1

K. Ruth Hamada

520 S. Main #1005

Seattle, WA  98104

Daniel G. McCoy

2309 N.E. 95th Street

Seattle, WA  98115

Ron Zier

1522 N.E. 175th #310

Seattle, WA  98155

Richard C. Bibaud

10721 N.E. 138 Place

Kirkland, WA  98034

John C. Cole, Jr.

13720 Beverly Park Road

Lynnwood, WA  98037

James L. Dahlbeck

17720 115th Street, N.E.

Granite Falls, WA  98252

Jon L. Rabine, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 763

553 John Street, Room 16

Seattle, WA 98109

K. Ruth Hamada

January 30, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-345-LU763-PNW

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 K. Ruth Hamada, Daniel G. McCoy, Ron Zier, Richard C. Bibaud, John C. Cole, Jr., and James L. Dahlbeck (“the Protesters”), all members of Local Union 763.

K. Ruth Hamada

January 30, 1996

Page 1

By letters dated January 23, 1996, the Protesters allege that eligibility challenges filed by Local Union 763 Secretary-Treasurer Jon Rabine against them and the failure of the Election Officer and the Election Appeals Master to expeditiously resolve these challenges has impeded their rights to conduct meaningful campaigning in preparation for the local union’s delegate and alternate elections.  Since the ballots are scheduled to be mailed on February 2, 1996, the Protesters claim to be severely disadvantaged, and Mr. Rabine’s slate of candidates unfairly advantaged, by the delayed resolution of the protests.   The Protesters request that the Election Officer reschedule the mailing of ballots, pursuant to her authority under Article XIV, Section 4 of the Rules.

Article XIV, Section 2(f) of the Rules states that “The Election Officer or her representative shall determine the protest within seven (7) days of receipt . . .”  Article XIV, Section 4 of the Rules sets out a number of remedies, without limitation, that the Election Officer may impose when the Rules have been violated or any conduct has occurred that would undermine a “fair, honest, open and informed election.” 

Eligibility protests were filed by Mr. Rabine on January 5, 8, and 9 against the Protesters and each decision has been issued by the Election Officer.   Each decision also has been appealed by Mr. Rabine.  Two of the appeals have been resolved by the Election Appeals Master.[1]   Each of the Protesters is a member of a slate running in opposition to Mr. Rabine’s slate for the positions of delegate and alternate delegate to the IBT’s 25th International Union Convention.

The Election Officer has long held that:  “[T]he right of IBT members to file election protests, even [if] non-meritorious, go to the heart of the safeguards mandated by the Rules and the Consent Order.”  In Re: Puglisi, Case No. P-1074-LU64-ENG (November 25, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 242, aff’d, 88 CIV. 4486, slip. op. (S.D.N.Y. 1992).  The Rules explicitly provide that “[a]ny member . . . may file a protest with the Election Officer alleging non-compliance with the Rules . . .”  Article XIV, Section 1.  Thus, the Election Officer finds here that Mr. Rabine acted within his rights under the Rules when he challenged the eligibility status of the Protesters. 

The Election Officer also determines that while the protests filed against the challengers were not resolved within seven days, as required by Article XIV, Section 2(f), the Election Officer’s failure to do so did not undermine the Protesters’ ability to engage in meaningful campaigning.  Pursuant to Article II, Section 6 of the Rules, the local union posted names of all nominated candidates, including those whose eligibility was challenged.  Thus, the membership was fully apprised of the nominations.  As set forth in Article II, Section 6(c):

Disputes concerning the eligibility of one or more nominated candidates to run for delegate or alternate delegate positions shall not stop, stay or delay the required posting, and the list shall not contain any indication that the eligibility of a candidate has been challenged, protested or questioned.

K. Ruth Hamada

January 30, 1996

Page 1

Nothing in the Rules has prevented the Protesters from campaigning for the positions to which they were nominated.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Protesters’ request that the ballot mailing date be rescheduled 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