April 10, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
John Cole, et al.
April 10, 1996
Page 1
John C. Cole, Jr.
13720 Beverly Park Road
Lynnwood, WA 98037
James Dahlbeck
17720 115th Street, N.E.
Granite Falls, WA 98252
K. Ruth Hamada
520 S. Main Street #1005
Seattle, WA 98104
Daniel McCoy
2309 N.E. 95th Street
Seattle, WA 98115
Jon L. Rabine, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 763
553 John Street
Seattle, WA 98109
Connie L. Cooper, Recording Secretary
Teamsters Local Union 763
553 John Street
Seattle, WA 98109
John Droge, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 763
553 John Street
Seattle, WA 98109
Dennis C. Archer, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 763
553 John Street
Seattle, WA 98109
Linda Grace, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 763
553 John Street
Seattle, WA 98109
Johnson Ongchoa
7819 203rd Street, S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Chan T. Cole
13720 Beverly Park Road
Lynnwood, WA 98037
John Cole, et al.
April 10, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-371-LU763-PNW
P-408-LU763-PNW
P-495-LU763-PNW
Post-6-LU763-PNW
John Cole, et al.
April 10, 1996
Page 1
Gentlepersons:
This matter involves three pre-election protests deferred by the Election Officer for post-election review and a post-election protest. Protests were filed with the Election Officer pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) and 3(a) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by John Cole, Jr., James Dahlbeck, K. Ruth Hamada and Daniel McCoy. Mr. Cole and Mr. Dahlbeck were candidates for delegate on the Carey Reform slate; Ms. Hamada and Mr. McCoy were independent candidates for delegate.
In P-371-LU763-PNW, Mr. Cole alleges that John Droge, a trustee for Local
Union 763, and Johnson Ongchoa, a member of Local Union 763, violated the Rules by soliciting members to sign a petition in support of the Membership Solidarity slate by misrepresenting the purpose of the petition. In P-408-LU763-PNW, Mr. Dahlbeck,
Ms. Hamada and Mr. McCoy allege that Local Union 763 Secretary-Treasurer Jon L. Rabine, Recording-Secretary Connie Cooper, Trustee Linda Grage, Member Dennis Archer and
Mr. Droge violated the Rules by distributing deceptive campaign literature. In P-495-
LU763-PNW, Mr. Cole and Mr. Dahlbeck contend that Mr. Rabine denied the Carey Reform slate access to an estimated 250 local union members by failing to provide the slate with the addresses for insert-helpers employed by the Seattle Times. In Post-6-LU763-PNW,
Ms. Hamada contends that the Election Officer should investigate the alleged delays in the processing of ballot envelope returns by the U.S. Postal Service’s Broadway Station, located in Seattle, Washington.
These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Christine M. Mrak.
1. Allegations of Solicitation of Petition Signatures
In P-371-LU763-PNW, Mr. Cole alleges that representatives of the Membership Solidarity slate solicited signatures on a petition supporting the slate from Seattle Times employees by mischaracterizing the petition.
The protester provided the names of 18 witnesses. The Regional Coordinator made repeated telephone calls to these individuals and six of them were successfully interviewed.
John Cole, et al.
April 10, 1996
Page 1
Chan Cole, a Seattle Times employee married to the protester, states that Mr. Ongchoa, a representative of the Membership Solidarity slate, approached her to sign the petition while both were working. When she asked Mr. Ongchoa what the petition was for, Ms. Cole states that Mr. Johnson replied, “We have to stick together, if we don’t stick together, they’re going to change our insurance.” When Ms. Cole questioned Mr. Johnson, he handed her the petition. According to Ms. Cole, as she attempted to read the petition, Mr. Droge, a part-time business agent and alternate delegate candidate on the Membership Solidarity slate, approached and said Ms. Cole couldn’t sign the petition because she would support her husband who was a delegate candidate. Ms. Cole states that she asked Mr. Ongchoa why he had mischaracterized the petition, to which he responded that Mr. Droge had told him that the petition was for insurance.
Other witnesses also reported that they were approached during work hours and asked to sign a petition by Mr. Droge. The other witnesses report either that Mr. Droge told them it was a petition to support him as an alternate delegate candidate or did not explain the petition. Some witnesses contend that they signed the document without first reading it, or knowingly signed or refused to sign. None of the witnesses other than Ms. Cole stated that the person soliciting their signatures did so while on paid time.
Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules provides that all IBT members have the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to distribute campaign literature and solicit support for any member’s candidacy. Such campaigning, however, is limited to non-work hours unless it is incidental. Campaigning during paid break time does not violate the Rules.
The petition underlying this protest reads:
I SUPPORT ‘THE MEMBERSHIP SOLIDARITY SLATE’ FOR DELEGATES TO THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS CONVENTION BEING HELD IN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA IN JULY, 1996.
The petitions clearly state that members who sign the document declare their support for the Membership Solidarity slate. Even if Mr. Ongchoa misrepresented the purpose of the petition before handing it to Ms. Cole, there is no evidence that any of the members who signed it were not given the opportunity to read the petition.
Mr. Cole also argues that at least 40 Local Union 763 members employed at the Seattle Times do not speak, read or write English as their primary language. None of the witnesses interviewed, however, claimed that their inability to read the petition influenced them to sign it.
Finally, Mr. Cole asserts that the petition was circulated by employees on work time in violation of the Rules. Other witnesses proffered by the protester could not recall whether Mr. Droge was on break, as Mr. Droge and Mr. Ongchoa contend, when he solicited their signatures. The Election Officer finds that even if some of the signatures were solicited on work time, such campaigning was of extremely short duration and, thus, incidental to their work. Therefore, the conduct falls within the exception in the Rules.
In consideration of the foregoing, Mr. Cole’s protest is DENIED.
John Cole, et al.
April 10, 1996
Page 1
2. Allegations of Misleading Campaign Literature
In P-408-LU763-PNW, Mr. Dahlbeck, Ms. Hamada and Mr. McCoy assert that the literature distributed by the Membership Solidarity slate falsely characterizes union members as supporters, pictured members without their authorization and falsely identified individuals as union stewards. The protesters also contend that a sample ballot reproduced in the campaign flyer is misleading for two reasons: (1) names of candidates other than the Membership Solidarity slate are omitted and (2) a square next to the word “INDEPENDENT” falsely indicates that an independent slate exists and can be elected by marking the square.
The campaign literature involved in this protest is four pages. The front page is for the address. Inside, there is a caption which reads:
Join us in supporting the Membership Solidarity Slate. Teamster 763 members and Shop Stewards listed below are supporters of the Membership Solidarity Slate. This is a partial list only. Names in bold indicate Shop Steward.
Below this is a listing of members interspersed with pictures and captions including a picture with the caption “Seattle Times Co. Shop Stewards.” On the back of the flyer are pictures and a listing of the slate candidates. At the bottom is a small sample ballot which has “SLATE” and a box on the left, “INDEPENDENT” and a box on the right. These are in lighter print with no candidates names listed. In the middle in bold letters with a box it identified the “MEMBERSHIP SOLIDARITY SLATE” and each candidate’s name is listed. On each side of the sample ballot is the word “VOTE” in large, bold, gold letters.
The Membership Solidarity slate states that all of the individuals pictured and listed in the flyer signed a petition supporting the slate. The slate also states that its designation of individuals as shop stewards was “materially accurate,” and that the sample ballot was legitimate campaign material.
As to the identification of individuals as shop stewards in the flyer, the Election Officer has repeatedly stated that she will not regulate the content on campaign literature. See Yolland, P-660-LU439-CSF (April 3, 1996); Landwehr, P-201-LU795-MOI (November 15, 1995); Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (February 21, 1991).
.
As to the sample ballot, the Election Officer has also consistently approved the use of sample ballots in material that is clearly campaign literature. Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996); Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (February 21, 1991); Hughes, P-499-LU710-CHI (February 21, 1991); Hammontree, P-530-LU667-SOU (February 25, 1991); Opalesky, P-464-LU623-PNJ (March 7, 1996). In the instant protest, the sample ballot is unmistakably campaign literature.
In consideration of the foregoing, this protest is DENIED.
John Cole, et al.
April 10, 1996
Page 1
3. Allegations of Failure to Provide Access to Union Members
In P-495-LU763-PNW, Mr. Cole and Mr. Dahlbeck charge that Mr. Rabine denied the Carey Reform slate access to an estimated 250 local union members by failing to provide the slate with the addresses for insert-helpers employed by the Seattle Times.
In response, Mr. Rabine states that the Carey Reform slate received the same mailing list as all other candidates, which was compiled based upon directions from the Election Officer. Insert-helpers were not included on that list, they state, because they are non-members, paying a service fee. Moreover, Mr. Rabine argues that the vote margin separating the last winning candidate from the following candidate was greater than the number of insert-helpers whose names did not appear on the list.
The Election Officer’s investigation found that Local Union 763 used Gross Mailing Services (“GMS”) to prepare lists for all candidates for delegate. Local Union 763 provided GMS with the names of all members eligible to vote in the election based upon instructions on how to compile the notice of nomination mailing list, previously received from the Election Officer on September 19 and November 30, 1995. Final corrections to the list were provided to GMS by Local Union 763 on January 29, 1996.
The Carey Reform slate mailed its campaign material through GMS on February 5, 1996. The Membership Solidarity slate mailed its material through GMS on February 3, 1996. GMS used the same mailing list for each slate’s mailing. Neither contained those insert-helpers employed by the Seattle Times. On February 9, the Election Officer ruled that insert-helpers could become eligible to vote in the delegate and alternate delegate elections by payment of a $13 initiation fee. See Davis, et al., P-336-LU763-PNW, et seq. (February 9, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 100 (February 26, 1996). The Election Officer directed Local Union 763 to post a notice at the Seattle Times advising the casual insert-helpers of their opportunity to become eligible to vote. This decision was issued after all campaign literature had been mailed by the local union through GMS.
Following the Election Officer’s ruling, approximately 20 insert-helpers who met the other eligibility requirements paid the $13 initiation fee. The Carey Reform slate acknowledges that it successfully contacted the 20 insert-helpers who became eligible to vote following the slate’s mailing.
Article VIII, Section 7 of the Rules pertains to candidate literature and mailings as they affect local unions. Section 7(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach candidate shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity, equal to that of all other candidates, to have his/her literature distributed by the Union, and the candidate’s expense.” Section 7(d) of the Rules states that, “[i]n complying with requests to mail literature, the Union shall use the current names and addresses that are on file for all relevant members in good standing . . .” Section 7(e) states that “[t]he Union shall exercise all reasonable efforts to insure that each candidate’s campaign literature is processed and distributed in a complete and prompt manner.”
John Cole, et al.
April 10, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer finds that Local Union 763 complied with the Rules. Through GMS, the local union provided the Carey Reform Slate a reasonable opportunity, equal to that of all other candidates, to have its literature distributed to members. No evidence has been presented that the local union exercised anything less than good faith and a reasonable effort in processing and distributing campaign literature via a current and complete list at the time of the mailing.
In consideration of the foregoing, this protest is DENIED.
4. Allegations Concerning Mishandling of Ballots by Post Office
In Post-6-LU763-PNW, Ms. Hamada requested that the Election Officer investigate alleged delays in the processing of ballot envelopes. She contends that while she personally delivered her ballot on February 18 to the U.S. Postal Service’s Terminal Station in Seattle for sorting and delivery, her ballot failed to arrive at the U.S. Postal Service’s Broadway Station before the February 26 deadline. She contends that despite a February 19 postmark, her ballot was incorrectly determined by the post office to be “NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED. UNABLE TO FORWARD. RETURN TO WRITER.” Ms. Hamada also requested that the Election Officer investigate the return of a ballot envelope mailed by Solomon Abate. Finally, Ms. Hamada alleges the Local Union Plan submitted to the Election Officer for approval by Mr. Rabine on September 5, 1995, identified a post office which was “neither convenient to access as parking is not provided nor is it very close to either your office or Local Union 763’s offices.”
The Election Officer’s representative contacted U.S. Post Office officials at the Broadway Station facility to discern how such a delay in mail processing occurred. A letter was received from the postmaster stating that the envelope containing Ms. Hamada’s envelope was flipped over as it was processed and the return address was read. The envelope was then sent to the post office’s delivery office, International Station, where it was incorrectly placed in the “wrong case separation” and returned to sender at the U.S. Postal Service’s Processing Distribution Center. As to Mr. Abate’s ballot, the postmaster states that the post office was unable to contact him for further investigation. Mr. Abate no longer resides at his past address and filed no change-of-address order with the post office. His telephone number was disconnected, the postmaster states, and directory assistance had no new phone number listed in his name. Finally, the postmaster states that U.S. Postal Service managers have been notified of the processing error so that appropriate actions may be taken to prevent a recurrence.
In McGee, Post-37-LU710-ENG, aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 138 (SA) (April 30, 1991), the Election Officer investigated an alleged irregularity in the Post Office’s processing of ballots. The Election Officer found no violation of the Rules where there was no evidence that ballots were lost, mishandled or that any person associated with the post office committed fraud.
Here, the Election Officer is satisfied that no fraud occurred. The Election Officer considers it significant that, according to the Post Office’s accounting, the ballot processing error did not occur at the U.S. Postal Service’s Broadway Station where ballots were collected. Instead, the investigation shows that the envelope containing Ms. Hamada’s ballot was improperly processed at International Station.
John Cole, et al.
April 10, 1996
Page 1
Nearly 200 votes separated the final winning and losing candidates in the delegate election. Thus, neither Ms. Hamada’s or Mr. Abate’s ballot, if cast, could have affected the election’s outcome. McCormick, et al., Post-65-LU705-CHI, et seq., aff’d, 91 - Elec.
App. - 164 (SA) (June 27, 1991).
As to Ms. Hamada’s final allegation, the Local Union Plan submitted by Local
Union 763 was received on September 7, 1995. Among the requirements of the Local Union Plan is a provision requesting the recommendation of a post office sight where mail ballots will be sent. Article II, Section 4(e) of the Rules permits “[a]ny interested Union member . . . to submit written comments to the Election Officer concerning a proposed Local Union Plan within fifteen (15) days of the submission of the Plan to the Election Officer.” The Local Union Plan submitted by Local Union 763 was approved by the Election Officer on November 21, 1995. Ms. Hamada’s objection to the use of the Terminal Station post office should have been filed with the Election Officer within 15 days of the Local Union Plan’s submission to the Election Officer.
In consideration of the foregoing, this 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 & 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 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 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
Christine M. Mrak, Regional Coordinator