March 5, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
George Saavedra, et al.
March 5, 1996
Page 1
George Saavedra
845 Thetford Place
Fairfield, CA 94533
Steve MacDonald
566 Gonzales Drive
Vacaville, CA 95688
Evelinda Coleman
742 Oakbrook
Vacaville, CA 95687
Carlos Barba, President
Teamsters Local Union 490
445 Nebraska Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
Casey Sawyer, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 490
445 Nebraska Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
Floyd Alcutt, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 490
445 Nebraska Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
Ross Cassidy, Recording Secretary
Teamsters Local Union 490
445 Nebraska Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
George Saavedra, et al.
March 5, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-485-LU490-CSF
Gentlepersons:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by three members of Local Union 490 who comprise the Local 490 Teamsters for Carey Slate: George Saavedra, Steve MacDonald and Evelinda Coleman. The protesters allege several violations of the Rules arising out of a letter sent to the Local Union 490 membership by Secretary-Treasurer Casey Sawyer, in which Mr. Sawyer criticizes certain action taken by slate member George Saavedra.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross.
George Saavedra, et al.
March 5, 1996
Page 1
The protesters’ slate is one of two slates running in the Local Union 490 delegate election. Delegate ballots were mailed on February 28, 1996 and will be counted on March 21, 1996. Mr. Sawyer’s letter criticizing Mr. Saavedra was mailed to the Local Union 490 membership on February 13, 1996, two weeks before the ballot mail date.
Mr. Sawyer’s letter arises out of the Local Union 490 election for local union officers held in November of 1994. Mr. Saavedra led the slate of losing candidates. After the election, he and the other members of his slate filed an internal union protest of the election. That protest was denied by General President Carey by letter dated November 20, 1995.
Mr. Saavedra appealed the ruling to the General Executive Board by letter dated January 25, 1996.
During this time period, Mr. Sawyer sent a number of letters to the Local Union 490 membership that were critical of the local union election protest and the protesters.
On January 20, 1995, Mr. Sawyer sent a letter informing the membership that the protest had been filed and calling the protest and its contents, among other things, “frivolous, undocumented and totally unwarranted,” an “unwarranted waste of money,” and said that it was “intended to disrupt and further interfere in the daily operations of Local 490.”
On March 29, 1995, Mr. Sawyer wrote to the membership to inform them of the retirement of one of the local union’s business agents (and president), and the letter included the assertion that the search for a new business agent would be “complicated by the outrageous and destructive ongoing election protest.”
· On December 4, 1995, approximately one week after
Mr. Sawyer had received Mr. Carey’s November 20 decision letter on November 27, he sent a letter to the local union membership informing them that the protest has been denied, in which he called the protest “nothing more than an abuse of the election process by the losers and their ‘outside consultants,’” called the protesters “a small group of fanatical malcontents [who] have caused the membership this hardship and expense,” and stated that the protest had cost the membership “thousands of dollars.”
George Saavedra, et al.
March 5, 1996
Page 1
The complaint raised in this protest concerns a fourth letter, which Mr. Sawyer sent to the membership on February 13, 1996, approximately one week after he received notice that Mr. Saavedra had appealed the ruling.[1] In this letter, Mr. Sawyer states that “the unbelievable, the unthinkable has happened,” calls Mr. Saavedra and his group a “group of malcontents,” and further states that “[t]his group has proven it doesn’t care about the will of the membership or how much they cost you in time and money.”
The protesters allege that this letter was designed to cast Mr. Saavedra in a negative light in an improper attempt to influence the delegate election process. In particular, the protesters point to the highly critical tone of the letter, to the omission of any mention that
Mr. Saavedra’s right to appeal is guaranteed by the IBT Constitution, and to the fact that neither Mr. Sawyer nor any other member of the local union has lodged charges against
Mr. Saavedra. They further state that the timing of letter, just prior to the mailing of ballots in the delegate election, is additional evidence that the letter was intended as negative campaigning.
In Carter, P-377-LU71-SEC (February 16, 1996), the Election Officer addressed a similar charge. A local union ordered the posting of a notice to members purporting to explain, side-by-side: (1) the status of an ongoing local union officer election protest and (2) the status of a re-run of the local union’s delegate election, due to a protest. The two proceedings involved the same opposing groups of members, and the notice contained negative editorial comment on one of the groups. That group then alleged that the notice constituted improper campaigning against them in the delegate re-run election.
In denying the protest, the Election Officer summarized the applicable principles.
Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a union-financed publication or communication may not be “used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person.”
The Election Officer has consistently used the “tone, timing and content” test in determining when a publication constitutes campaigning. Jacob, P-071-LU319-EOH (September 7, 1995), aff'd, 95 - Elec. App. - 19 (KC) (October 3, 1995); Martin, P-010-IBT-PNJ, et seq. (August 17, 1995), aff’d,
95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). She also “‘reviews the specific context in which the communication takes place.” Jacob, supra.
“[U]nion officers retain both the right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern.” Martin, supra. In Blake, P-245-JC42-CLA (December 18, 1996), aff’d,
George Saavedra, et al.
March 5, 1996
Page 1
96 - Elec. App. - 54 (January 12, 1996), the Election Officer held that reports on the results of protest decisions are legitimate subjects for union-financed publications, even if the communication is critical of a candidate.
After reviewing the record in this protest, the Election Officer finds that the “tone, timing and content” of the disputed letter, when read in the “specific context in which the communication [took] place,” was not improper campaigning against Mr. Saavedra or the other protesters. Mr. Sawyer’s fourth letter was not different in tone and content from his first three letters. Thus, the fourth letter does not appear to be anything more than part of
Mr. Sawyer’s ongoing commentary about the protest to the local union’s officer election. Its timing, approximately one week after Mr. Sawyer learned of Mr. Saavedra’s notice of appeal to the General Executive Board, conformed to the timing of his third letter.
Moreover, the specific context of the letter indicates that it was not connected to the delegate election process, but to the local union elections over which the Election Office does not have jurisdiction.
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
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator
[1]Mr. Sawyer states that he received that notice on February 5th.