April 9, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Chester Glanton & Jose Galvan
April 9, 1996
Page 1
Chester Glanton
8049 S. Engleside
Chicago, IL 60619
Jose Galvan
3855 W. 59th Place
Chicago, IL 60629
Eddie Kornegay, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 743
300 S. Ashland Avenue
Chicago, IL 60607
Elijah Buffington
Teamsters Local Union 743
300 S. Ashland Avenue
Chicago, IL 60607
Chester Glanton & Jose Galvan
April 9, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-640-LU743-CHI
Gentlemen:
This 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 Chester Glanton and Jose Galvan, members of Local Union 743. The protesters allege that Eddie Kornegay, Elijah Buffington and the Movement Towards Members (“MTM”) slate have produced and distributed campaign material with the use of union resources and with union personnel on union time, in violation of the Rules.
Local Union 743 responds that the protested material was prepared by Mr. Buffington’s daughter on a home computer and copied at a commercial copying center, for which they produced a receipt. The local union further states that the material was not distributed by local union employees on union time.
The protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Dennis M. Sarsany.
Chester Glanton & Jose Galvan
April 9, 1996
Page 1
Article XII, Section 1(b) of the Rules states, in relevant part:
(3) No Union funds or other things of value shall be used, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual. Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigns unless the Union is compensated at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided equal access to such assistance and are advised in advance, in writing of the availability of such assistance. . .
(4) No member may campaign for him/herself or for any other candidate during time that is paid for by the Union or by any employer. However, campaigning incidental to work or regular Union business or during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is not violative of the campaign contribution rules.
The protesters are local union business agents are opponents of the MTM slate. The investigation revealed that on March 18, 1996, a copy of a campaign survey produced by the MTM slate came into the possession of the protesters. The document was placed in the protesters’ mail slots at the local union by an unknown source. This survey was designed to elicit campaign information from local union business agents who support the MTM slate. The survey asks such questions as whether MTM campaign literature has been distributed at a particular work site, what kind of campaign material has been posted, how many members there support which slate, etc.
The protesters, both business agents at the local union, contend that this survey was distributed to all business agents via intra-office mail. The investigation revealed that only the protesters and Clara Day, who is not a member of either slate, received copies of the survey on March 18, 1996. Those business agents are involved in the MTM campaign received the survey during the week of March 4, and did not receive it via intra-office mail. Each of these business agents received multiple copies to cover work sites they service.
The charged parties state that they have no idea how or why the survey was distributed to these individuals. They state that the survey was an internal campaign document and not to be distributed outside of the MTM campaign.
Aside from the receipt of this document, the protesters have presented no evidence to refute the charged parties’ contention that the survey was prepared by Mr. Buffington’s daughter on their home computer, copied at a commercial photocopy center and not distributed on union time. Additionally, since the wording of the document clearly assumes that the business agents to whom it was distributed were supporters of the MTM slate, it seems highly unlikely that it was intended for general circulation to all business agents. The charged parties state that it was not their intention to distribute such material to non-MTM slate personnel.
Chester Glanton & Jose Galvan
April 9, 1996
Page 1
There is no evidence to show that the document was produced or distributed with the use of union personnel or union resources, or that it was, as the protesters claim, distributed to all business agents.
As a result, 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
Dennis M. Sarsany, Adjunct Regional Coordinator
Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator