March 13, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Archie J. Cook
4508 Balmoral Drive
Richton Park, IL 60471
Jo Pressler
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
Re: Election Office Case No. P-458-LU705-CHI
Gentlepersons:
Archie J. Cook, a member of Local Union 705, filed this pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protester alleges that Local Union 705 Administrator Jo Pressler used Local Union 705 facilities and equipment to participate in an appeal hearing concerning a protest she had filed challenging the eligibility of delegate candidates. The protester contends that by participating in the appeal hearing on union time and from the local union office, Ms. Pressler violated the Rules by using union resources to influence the election of delegates from the local union.
Ms. Pressler responds that her actions did not violate the Rules as determined in Cook, P-357-LU705-CHI (February 16, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 113 (February 29, 1996). In that case, the Election Officer held that the filing of a protest is protected activity and does not constitute support for a candidate or campaigning under the Rules.
The protest was assigned to Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos for investigation.
In Cook, supra, the protester objected to Ms. Pressler’s use of her position, as well as Local Union 705 equipment and facilities, to file a protest concerning the eligibility of three candidates for delegate. The eligibility protest was decided in Pressler, E-52-LU705-EOH (February 1, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 90 (February 15, 1996).
Archie Cook
March 13, 1996
Page 1
In the instant protest, the protester objects to Ms. Pressler’s participation in the appeal hearing of the eligibility protest held February 12, 1996. In Jordan, P-269-LU337-SCE (January 18, 1996), aff’d in pertinent part, 95 - Elec. App. - 84 (KC) (February 12, 1996), the Election Officer considered whether the participation of a union staffperson in a protest appeal hearing was an unlawful union contribution. She stated that protest activity is not campaign activity merely because the position advanced in connection with the protest will ultimately benefit one side and injure the other. She held that union resources may be used in protest-related activity if the protest furthers an independent, institutional interest of the union.
In Furst, P-711-LU1145-NCE (undated), aff’d in part and rev’d in part sub nom,
91 - Elec. App. - 172 (SA) (July 29, 1991), the Election Officer held that union-funded activity in support of an eligibility protest did not involve a prohibited union contribution because a local union has a demonstrable, institutional interest in the eligibility of candidates to run for delegate. Therefore, Ms. Pressler’s participation in the appeal of the eligibility protest was not a prohibited use of union resources.
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 & 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
Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator