February 5, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Hubert C. Dietrich
February 5, 1996
Page 1
Hubert C. Dietrich, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 249
4701 Butler Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15201
Joe Rossi
1553 Hawthorne Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15201
Jim Ferina
56 Harwood Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15211
Bob Long
1954 Amato Drive
Apartment 31-B
North Versailles, PA 15137
Robert Sokol
474 Debbie Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15227
Tom Kloes
R.D. 1, Box 457
Valencia, PA 16059
Hubert C. Dietrich
February 5, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-350-LU249-PGH
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Hubert C. Dietrich, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 249 and a candidate for delegate to the International convention. Mr. Dietrich is part of a seven-person slate of candidates for delegate and alternate delegate called the Dietrich/Mahoney Slate. The charged parties--Joe Rossi, Jim Ferina, Bob Long, Robert Sokol, and Tom Kloes--formed an opposition slate with the name “Delegates for Carey.” The protester asserts that the use of this name is improper and will cause confusion among the membership by implying that the other candidates do not support Mr. Carey for general president.
Hubert C. Dietrich
February 5, 1996
Page 1
The charged parties respond that their slate’s name is not confusing or misleading.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator William B. Kane.
Local Union 249 held its nominations meeting on January 21, 1996. The two aforementioned slates of candidates were nominated, along with one independent candidate for delegate. There is no dispute that both slates properly submitted their slate declaration forms to the Regional Coordinator.
Article IX, Section 1 of the Rules sets forth guidelines for candidates to follow who wish to form slates. The only reference to the naming of a slate is found in Section 1(b), which states:
To form a slate, there shall be mutual consent between and among all candidates running on the slate. Such mutual consent shall be evidenced by the signing of a declaration by all members of the slate, giving the position that each candidate seeks and the name, if any, of the slate to be formed.
Article IX puts no limitations on the names that may be chosen by a slate of candidates. Similarly, the slate declaration form produced by the Election Officer does not define or limit the name a slate may use.
The protester contends that members deserve the right to vote for delegates based on the qualifications of the candidates, rather than whom the candidates are supporting for general president. The ability to form slates under Article IX, in the protester’s view, is meant to assist the members in choosing delegates, and not to provide a referendum on candidates for International office. Mr. Dietrich asserts that the use of the name “Delegates for Carey” was unfair to everyone in the local union.
Under the Rules, the Election Officer is charged with ensuring the “conduct of fair, honest, open and informed elections.” Article I. Thus, in considering protests over slate names, the Election Officer will review whether the name would interfere with these criteria. Generally, however, the Election Officer will permit parties a wide breadth in the selection of a slate name, so long as the name is not chosen to materially mislead the voters, the name selected does not specify or communicate incumbency, is not obscene, or is not too lengthy to appear on the ballot. Holland, et al., P-188-LU480-SCE, et seq. (October 12, 1995), Dunning, et al., P-189-LU 486-MGN, et seq. (October 13, 1995). In the last election, the Election Officer ruled that the designation “Ron Carey Slate” was not in violation of the Election Rules because it did not identify incumbency, was not obscene and was not too lengthy to appear on the ballot. Cimino, Election Office Case No. P-147-LU107-PHL (December 26, 1990). Similarly, the use of the name “Delegates for Carey” does not violate the Rules.
Hubert C. Dietrich
February 5, 1996
Page 1
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
William B. Kane, Regional Coordinator