March 12, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Stewart Ross & Kathy Tiihonen
March 12, 1996
Page 1
Stewart L. Ross
3125 W. Las Lomitas
Tucson, AZ 85741
Kathy Tiihonen
5525 S. Mission Road #2208
Tucson, AZ 85746
Richard Esquivel, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 104
1450 S. 27th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85009
Stewart Ross & Kathy Tiihonen
March 12, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-466-LU104-RMT
Gentlepersons:
Stewart L. Ross and Kathy Tiihonen, members of Local Union 104, filed a 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”). Ms. Tiihonen is also a candidate for delegate on the Arizona Teamsters Restore the Pride slate. The protesters allege that business agents employed by Local Union 104 were campaigning for the Teamsters for Reform slate of delegates by displaying campaign material at the local union’s Tucson office on February 13 and February 14, 1996.[1]
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Jonathan Wilderman.
The material in question is in the size and format of a business card. On one side of the card, the top line reads “Teamsters for Reform Slate,” with the words “Supporting the Ron Carey Slate” appearing beneath in parentheses. The candidates for delegate and alternate delegate are then listed in separate columns, with an “X” placed next to each name. On the right-hand side of the card, a large box is drawn with a check mark in it.
Stewart Ross & Kathy Tiihonen
March 12, 1996
Page 1
The reverse side of the card is headed “Important Contact Numbers” and provides telephone numbers for the following entities: Local Union 104; the Tucson and Flagstaff offices of the local union; the IBT switchboard; the IBT Phoenix office; Joint Council 92; and several benefit plans. Underneath the listing for the IBT Phoenix office is the name “Jim Benson, V.P.” Mr. Benson appears on the front of the card as a delegate on the Teamsters for Reform slate.
The protesters state that a stack of these cards were placed in a prominent position on a shelf below the glass window in the Tucson office where union business is regularly conducted. According to the protesters, the campaign cards were available for distribution to any member who visited the office.
As part of the Election Officer’s investigation, the Regional Coordinator contacted Richard Esquivel, the secretary-treasurer of Local Union 104. Mr. Esquivel stated that he had no knowledge of the business cards at issue before receiving a copy of the instant protest on February 16, at which point he immediately contacted the two business agents who work out of the Tucson office, Terry Hart and Brian Johnson. Both business agents claimed they were unaware that the cards had been placed in their office. The cards were removed by Mr. Hart on February 16, 1996.
Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4) of the Rules states as follows:
A Local Union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor or against any candidate in conjunction with its meetings or otherwise. This requirement shall apply not only to formal presentations by or on behalf of candidates but also to informal campaign activities, such as . . . literature distribution tables, etc.
In the instant case, the Election Officer finds that the business cards seen by the protesters on February 13 and 14, 1996 constitute campaign material. While Mr. Esquivel, Mr. Hart and Mr. Johnson state that they were unaware of the presence of the cards in the Tucson office, the fact remains that the cards were prominently displayed from at least February 13 to February 16. By allowing such display, even if not intentionally, the local union discriminated in favor of the Teamsters for Reform slate, in violation of the Rules. See Halberg, P-089-LU174-PNW (September 7, 1995); Hoffa, P-313-LU728-SEC, et seq. (February 26, 1996).
Accordingly, the protest is GRANTED.
When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIV, Section 4. The Rules provide a wide range of examples of possible remedies, without providing any limitation. The broad scope of her supervisory responsibility for the elections, as recognized by the Consent Decree and subsequent decisions of the Court, gives the Election Officer substantial discretion in formulating a remedy to fit the particular violation.
Stewart Ross & Kathy Tiihonen
March 12, 1996
Page 1
As a remedy for the violation here, the Election Officer directs Local Union 104, within two (2) days of this decision, to notify the Arizona Teamsters Restore the Pride slate and the independent candidates for delegate and alternate delegate, by duplicating the notice below and, upon timely request, to make campaign material provided by such candidates available for distribution in the Tucson office where it made available the cards supporting the Teamsters for Reform slate. The local union shall make such materials available for a five-day period.
The notices shall be mailed by first-class mail. The other slate and the independent candidates shall have two (2) days from the date of receipt of the notice to provide
not more than 300 copies of campaign literature to Local Union 104 for distribution at its Tucson office. The Election Officer further directs Local Union 104 to make available for distribution the literature received in response to the notice by placing such literature in the same area where the cards were available.
Within two (2) days of mailing the notice, Mr. Esquivel shall file an affidavit with the Election Officer demonstrating that a notice consistent with this directive has been sent and that it fully complies with the order of the Election Officer.
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
Jonathan Wilderman, Regional Coordinator
NOTICE TO DELEGATE AND
ALTERNATE DELEGATE CANDIDATES
The Election Rules prohibit local unions from discriminating or permitting discrimination against any candidate for office in the 1995-1996 International union delegate and officer elections in connection with distribution of campaign literature.
Local Union 104 has violated this provision by making available in its Tucson office campaign literature supporting the Teamsters for Reform slate. Local Union 104 will make available literature on behalf of the the Arizona Teamsters Restore the Pride slate and the independent candidates for delegate and alternate delegate at the Tucson office for a period of five (5) days. If you request such distribution, please provide to the local union within two (2) days of your receipt of this notice no more than 300 copies of campaign literature.
_____________________
Richard Esquivel, Secretary-Treasurer
Local Union 104
Approved by Barbara Zack Quindel, IBT Election Officer.
[1]Mr. Ross and Ms. Tiihonen were present in the Tucson office on February 13 and February 14, respectively. Mr. Ross filed his protest on February 13, while Ms. Tiihonen filed an identically-worded protest the following day. The Election Office docketed both letters as Case No. P-466-LU104-RMT.