March 14, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Samuel Carter & John Ford
March 14, 1996
Page 1
Samuel M. Carter
1617 Andover Street
Concord, NC 28027
John A. Ford
1213 Auten Road
Charlotte, NC 28216
Hugh Hagler
1002 Dooley Drive
Charlotte, NC 28227
Curtis Cunningham
P.O. Box 1266
Monroe, NC 28111
Chris Jackson
1055-A Hearn Street
Rock Hill, SC 29732
Willie Rivers
6033 Queensborough Court
Charlotte, NC 28216
Danny Deese
Nationsway Express
1000 I-85, S.
Charlotte, NC 28208
Robert Baptiste
Baptiste and Wilder, P.C.
1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Samuel Carter & John Ford
March 14, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-428-LU71-SEC
P-450-LU71-SEC
P-496-LU71-SEC
Gentlemen:
These 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”). In P-428-LU71-SEC, Samuel M. Carter contends that the local union’s attorney advised
Samuel Carter & John Ford
March 14, 1996
Page 1
John A. (“Tony”) Ford on his delegate candidacy while being paid with union funds, in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(2) of the Rules. In P-450-LU71-SEC, Mr. Ford claims that the use of a local union copy machine by a supporter of Mr. Carter violated the Rules. In P-496-LU71-SEC, Mr. Ford claims that Mr. Carter used improperly obtained local union vacation benefit payments to finance his campaign, and also repeats the allegation of theft of telephone lists recently decided on by the Election Officer in P-381-LU71-SEC. Under
Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules, the Election Officer deferred resolution of the protests until after the election and consolidated them for consideration.
These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator J. Griffin Morgan.
1. Background
Until his recent defeat by Mr. Ford in a local union officer election in late 1995,
Mr. Carter was president of Local Union 71. (Mr. Carter’s challenge to that election ultimately prevailed before the International union and the election was recently re-run.)
Mr. Carter and Mr. Ford also led rival slates of candidates for delegate in a campaign which has its background in Carter, P-217-LU71-SEC (December 7, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec.
App. - 46 (KC) (December 20, 1995). In Carter, the Election Officer set aside a delegate election held during the fall of 1995, and ordered a new election, held in February 1996. The protests here, involving several different sets of factual allegations, were filed during the campaign for the re-run delegate election. These protests, arising from different circumstances and incidents, will be addressed separately below.
2. Allegations Concerning Payments for and Advice from the Local Union Attorney
In P-428-LU71-SEC, Mr. Carter alleges that Attorney Robert Baptiste, whose fees have been paid by Local Union 71, has also been advising Mr. Ford on his delegate candidacy. Use of union-supported legal services for campaigning is forbidden by Article XII, Section 1(b)(2) of the Rules. In response to the protest, Mr. Ford and Mr. Baptiste state that the legal work at issue was for the local union and not for Mr. Ford’s candidacy. These statements are corroborated by the legal bills to the local union for the services rendered by Mr. Baptiste and his firm. These documents do not reflect charges for advice to Mr. Ford’s candidacy for delegate. Moreover, Mr. Ford had separate counsel advising him on his candidacy. This is confirmed by bills submitted to Mr. Ford by that attorney and reviewed during this investigation.
Mr. Carter has not produced any evidence to support his contention that Mr. Baptiste advised Mr. Ford or his campaign slate on election-related matters while being paid with Local Union 71 funds. As the Election Appeals Master has stated, when the parties to the dispute disagree as to the facts, “[i]n the absence of tangible evidence” to support the protest, it should be denied. In Re: Chentnik, 95 - Elec. App. - 52 (KC) (January 10, 1996). Here, Mr. Carter must offer evidence in some reliable form. The Election Officer finds that he has failed to do so.
Samuel Carter & John Ford
March 14, 1996
Page 1
3. Allegation of Use of the Local Union Copy Machine
In P-450-LU71-SEC, Mr. Ford protested the use of the local copy machine to copy campaign literature. A member of the local union who supported Mr. Carter in the delegate race made copies of a piece of campaign literature on the local union copier. The campaign literature, however, was not from the delegate election, but was literature created in April 1995 in support of Mr. Ford’s candidacy for local union office. The member’s purpose in using the copier was not to campaign in the local union delegate election, but for use in a private meeting with Mr. Ford concerning employer discipline of a local union member.
Article VIII, Section 11(c) prohibits the use of local union resources for campaigning. The use of the local union’s copier in these circumstances, however, was plainly not to support campaigning in violation of the Rules.
4. Use of Vacation Benefits Payments
In P-496, Mr. Ford makes a series of allegations concerning the period of January 1, 1996 through January 13, 1996. According to Mr. Ford, after Mr. Carter lost the local union officer election, he was obliged under Local Union 71 bylaws and the IBT Constitution to vacate local union office, as of January 1. Mr. Ford’s claim is that rather than vacating his office, Mr. Carter remained there until January 13, and abused the office by paying himself and other business agents vacation benefits, which were then used to finance the delegate campaign of Mr. Carter’s slate.
Mr. Carter admits that he remained in office and that the vacation benefit payments were made at his direction. He denies, however, that the vacation payments were used to finance his campaign. He also claims that he had the right, under the bylaws and the IBT Constitution, to remain in office. He further contends that the local union’s written benefits policy permitted him to make the disputed payments.
The Election Officer declines to address the merits of these issues (Mr. Carter’s disputed tenure from January 1 through January 13 and the issuance of vacation pay). These are internal local union matters over which the Election Officer has no jurisdiction. “Actions of Local members and officers are not within the jurisdiction of the Election Officer unless there is a connection between those actions and the 1995-1996 IBT International Union delegate officer Elections.” Golubovic, P-031-LU710-CHI (July 10, 1995).
Mr. Ford, however, contends that the vacation payments were used to finance
Mr. Carter’s delegate campaign, a contention which Mr. Carter denies.
Samuel Carter & John Ford
March 14, 1996
Page 1
The Regional Coordinator reviewed campaign financial and bank records for the Carter slate. These records do not show any funds received from Mr. Carter and the other business agents. Moreover, there are no other campaign expenditures for the Carter slate which might reflect use of money from the challenged sources. Based on this review, the Election Officer finds that there is no evidence to show any connection between the disputed vacation pay and the financing of Mr. Carter’s campaign.
5. Allegations of Use of Telephone Lists
Finally, in P-496-LU41-SEC, Mr. Ford also repeats his allegations of theft of telephone lists. This issue was decided in Ford, P-381-LU71-SEC (February 16, 1996). No additional evidence has been offered or obtained through the Regional Coordinator’s investigation. The Election Officer finds no reason to revisit the prior denial of Mr. Ford’s protest on this issue.
In light of the foregoing, these 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 & 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
J. Griffin Morgan, Regional Coordinator