March 5, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Rick Sather, Gregory Kujawa
March 5, 1996
Page 1
Rick Sather
561 206th Avenue, N.W.
Cedar, MN 55011
Gregory C. Kujawa
3025 DuPont Avenue, S.
Minneapolis, MN 55408
James Iund
19970 Gladiola Street
Cedar, MN 55011
Carl Meyers
1109 4th Street Court
St. James, MN 56081
Robert Rath
1704 18th Avenue, S.
Moorehead, MN 56560
Jill Powelson
608 2nd Avenue
Madison, MN 56256
Rick Sather, Gregory Kujawa
March 5, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-498-LU638-NCE
Gentlepersons:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Rick Sather and Gregory C. Kujawa, members of Local Union 638, and candidates for delegate on the Ron Carey Reform Slate. They allege that at Local Union 638’s nomination meeting, Adjunct Regional Coordinator Marilynn Taylor impermissibly accepted written nominations, seconds and acceptances for Carl Meyers and Jim Iund, candidates for delegate, and for Jill Powelson and Robert Rath, candidates for alternate delegate. The protesters allege that Mr. Meyers and
Mr. Iund failed to send copies of their nomination, second and acceptance, and that
Ms. Powelson and Mr. Rath failed to send copies of their acceptances to the Election Officer on the day preceding the nomination meeting as required by Article II, Section 5(f) and (g) of the Rules.
Rick Sather, Gregory Kujawa
March 5, 1996
Page 1
In response, the charged parties state that the nominations, seconds and acceptances were sent to the local union and not the Election Officer on the advice of Ms. Taylor. The parties state that they made a reasonable, good faith effort to follow the Rules and that these provisions of the Rules are unnecessarily technical, confusing and make it difficult to nominate candidates by mail.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith Kuhn.
The facts underlying this protest are largely undisputed. Local Union 638’s nomination meeting was held February 19, 1996. Several days before the nomination meeting, Ms. Taylor contacted Local Union 638 Secretary-Treasurer Dick Heck, and Pam Bolnick, a secretary with the local union, to discuss the nomination meeting. During the conversation, Ms. Bolnick asked several questions regarding what forms were required to be faxed to the Election Officer before the nomination meeting and which could be given to Ms. Taylor at the meeting. Ms. Bolnick asked specifically about written nominations, seconds and acceptances. Ms. Taylor believes that she may have misspoke in response to Ms. Bolnick’s question, telling her that written nominations and seconds could be presented by a member at the nomination meeting without having been forwarded in advance to the Election Officer. Ms. Bolnick and Mr. Heck state that they understood from Ms. Taylor that the nominations, seconds and acceptances did not need to be faxed to the Election Officer before the nomination meeting.
During the nomination meeting, Ms. Taylor accepted nominations from the floor.
Mr. Heck presented her with copies of documents reflecting the written nominations, seconds and acceptances for Mr. Meyers, Mr. Iund, Ms. Powelson and Mr. Rath. Each of these individuals are members of Mr. Heck’s slate. These documents had been sent to the local union in advance of the meeting but were not sent to the Election Officer’s representative. When
Ms. Taylor asked why none of the documents had been forwarded to the Election Officer in advance, Mr. Heck responded, “Well that’s what you said we could do.” Ms. Taylor made a determination at that time that Mr. Heck may have relied on her directions in this regard.
As to Mr. Iund and Mr. Meyers, Ms. Taylor accepted the written nominations, seconds and acceptances at the meeting. However, she did not accept the written nomination and second as to Mr. Rath because the documents mistakenly nominated and seconded him for the position of “delegate” rather than “alternate delegate.” Subsequently, Mr. Rath was nominated and seconded from the floor for the position of alternate delegate, and Ms. Taylor accepted
Mr. Rath’s written acceptance for that position. Ms. Powelson was nominated and seconded for alternate delegate from the floor. Ms. Taylor then accepted Ms. Powelson’s written acceptance.
Article II, Section 5(f) and (g) of the Rules provide for written nominations, seconds and acceptances at a local union nomination meeting. Section 5(f) of the Rules requires that members who choose to submit written nominations and seconds “must” provide a copy of such to the Election Officer “no later than 5 p.m. of the day immediately prior to the day of the relevant nomination meeting.” Section 5(g) of the Rules requires that acceptances of nomination be submitted:
Rick Sather, Gregory Kujawa
March 5, 1996
Page 1
. . . to the Local Union or to another member who, present at the nomination meeting, produces it at the time the member is nominated. If furnished to the Local Union, a copy of this written acceptance of nomination should also be submitted to the Election Officer or her representative no later than 5 p.m. of the immediately prior to the day of the relevant nomination meeting.
The Rules varying procedures set forth in Section 5(f) and Section 5(g) understandably have caused some confusion for IBT members who have attempted to submit written nominations, seconds and acceptances. The Election Officer has been accommodating in her approach as to members who have not explicitly followed the letter of these Rules. Such accommodation promotes the underlying principals of member participation and union democracy as set forth by the Consent Decree and the Rules. McGill, P-331-LU213-CAN (January 25, 1996).
Contrary to the protesters’ allegation, the Rules do not explicitly require that written acceptances be forwarded to the Election Officer ahead of time. Rather, Section 5(g) states that written acceptances “should” be forwarded to the Election Officer representative. Thus, Section 5(g) of the Rules was not violated. Nor were the Rules violated as to Mr. Rath and
Ms. Powelson who were properly nominated and seconded from the floor.
As to the allegations concerning the acceptance of written nominations and seconds pertaining to Mr. Iund and Mr. Meyers, the Election Officer finds that it would not support the underlying purpose of the Rules or the Consent Decree to bar the charged parties from running for delegate despite their failure to submit copies to the Election Office. As stated in McGill, supra, Mr. Heck’s failure to comply fully with Section 5(f) “did not disadvantage the other candidates or adversely affect the nomination process.” Moreover, sufficient evidence suggests that Mr. Heck’s failure to fully comply with the Rules may have been based upon advice given by an Election Officer representative. Under these circumstances, the Election Officer finds that it would not promote “fair, honest, open and informed elections” to refuse to recognize the candidacies of Mr. Iund and Mr. Meyers. Article I.
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
Rick Sather, Gregory Kujawa
March 5, 1996
Page 1
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
Judith Kuhn, Regional Coordinator