March 27, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Jim Merritt
March 27, 1996
Page 1
Jim Merritt
751 Michelle Street
Ridley Park, PA 19078
Richard Opalesky, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 623
4369 Richmond Street
Philadelphia, PA 19137
Michael Hennessy, President
Teamsters Local Union 623
4369 Richmond Street
Philadelphia, PA 19137
Jim Merritt
March 27, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-641-LU623-PNJ
P-645-LU623-PNJ
Gentlemen:
These pre-election protests were filed by Jim Merritt, a member of Local Union 623, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). In P-641-LU623-PNJ, Mr. Merritt alleges that Local Union 623 President Mike Hennessy and Secretary-Treasurer Richard Opalesky successfully persuaded the local union to have its members vote as to who the delegates to the International convention should support for International office. The protester asserts that such a poll or vote is an unlawful use of union resources for campaign purposes. Additionally, Mr. Merritt claims that Mr. Hennessy announced an upcoming Hoffa rally from the podium at the membership meeting, in violation of Article VIII, Section 5 of the Rules. In P-645-LU623-PNJ, Mr. Merritt contends that Mr. Opalesky neglected to post the official election tally for the delegate on all union bulletin boards, in violation of Article III, Section 5 of the Rules.
Jim Merritt
March 27, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Opalesky admits that he directed the posting of a notice which stated that a vote on who the delegates should support for International office would be taken at the membership meeting. He defends the vote as a “poll,” which enabled the officers to know how the membership felt. Mr. Opalesky further defends that this “polling” occurred during the last election and that the results of the vote would not be sent out to the members. Moreover, he argues that there is nothing wrong with the membership instructing its own delegates as to how to vote at the International convention. On March 18, 1996, Mr. Opalesky submitted an “Affidavit of Posting” swearing that he posted the official election tally on all bulletin boards, as required by the Rules.
Because these protests involve the same protester and the same charged parties, they are consolidated for decision. Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr. investigated the protests.
On March 2, 1996, the votes were counted in the Local Union 623 delegate election. Mr. Opalesky and Mr. Hennessy, along with Clinton F. Banks, Jr. and George Casey, ran as candidates on the Opalesky Team slate. The protester, along with Bill Morris, Ted Carpino and Bill Shannahan, ran on the Ron Carey Reform slate. The Ron Carey Reform slate candidates defeated all of the candidates on the Opalesky Team slate.
Mr. Opalesky signed and directed the posting of a meeting notice, dated March 4, 1996, for the monthly membership meeting. The notice specifically stated that “a vote will be taken at this meeting (the general membership meeting of March 16, 1996) on who the membership will support for General President at the 1996 convention.”
At the membership meeting on March 16, Mr. Hennessy stated that a vote would be taken of the members present to show who the membership would support for general president at the 1996 International convention. Some of the members present at the meeting, including the protester, complained that such a vote would violate the Rules. Nevertheless, Mr. Hennessy conducted the vote by having members stand. Of the 58 members present,
33 voted for Mr. Hoffa, 10 voted for Mr. Carey and the remainder abstained.
During the meeting, but after the vote was conducted, Mr. Hennessy announced from the podium the time and place of an upcoming rally for Mr. Hoffa in the Philadelphia area.
1. The Vote Taken at the Membership Meeting
The Election Officer finds that the vote taken at a membership meeting to identify which candidate for general president the delegates from the local union would support violates the Rules. The Election Officer recently addressed the same issue presented here in Gilmartin, P-571-LU559-SCE (March 14, 1996). In that case, members attending the monthly membership meeting voted upon a motion to poll the local union membership as to how the delegates at the International convention should vote for International officers. The Election Officer found that the Rules were violated, stating, in pertinent part:
Jim Merritt
March 27, 1996
Page 1
In essence, Local Union 559’s requirement to instruct its delegates by polling the members creates an obligation upon delegates that is not found anywhere in the Rules. By changing the responsibilities of delegates to the International convention, the local union has, in fact, attempted to have local union policies or practices supersede the Rules. This is unacceptable.
The Election Officer found that only by voting for delegate candidates in the secret ballot election conducted by the Election Officer could the membership make its preference for International office be known. She stated:
That is the way the Rules envision that local unions make their preferences known, not through some new procedure which might have the effect of electing delegates personally committed to one candidate but then instructed by the membership--for whatever reason--to vote for another candidate.
The Election Officer also found that such a vote had the foreseeable effect of influencing the election on behalf of the candidate(s) favored in the vote and, thus, was a violation of
Article XII, Section 1(b) of the Rules.
Here, the Election Officer also finds that the transparent effort to negate the effects of the delegate election by a vote at the membership meeting similarly violates the underlying policies and, specifically, Article XII, Section 1(b) of the Rules.
2. Announcement of the Rally
The Election Officer also finds that Mr. Hennessy’s announcement from the podium during a union meeting of the time and location of an upcoming rally for Mr. Hoffa in the Philadelphia area is a violation of Article VIII, Section 5 of the Rules.
In Johnson, P-977-LU886-SOU (October 28, 1991), a local union president stated during a membership meeting that he had a personal announcement to make after the meeting was adjourned and that those members who wished to hear the announcement should stay. After the adjournment, the president announced from the podium a scheduled reception for two candidates for International office. Finding a violation, the Election Officer stated:
Although the announcement was made after the meeting officially adjourned, notice that there would be such an announcement was given prior to adjournment . . . from the podium.
. . . The conduct and content of Local Union meetings must either be politically neutral or permit all members to have an equal opportunity to express their political view.
This case presents a clearer violation in that Mr. Hennessy announced the rally for
Mr. Hoffa during the meeting from the podium. This is a violation of Article VIII, Section 5 of the Rules, which seeks to treat all candidates equally.
Jim Merritt
March 27, 1996
Page 1
3. Non-Compliance in the Posting of Election Results
On March 13, 1996, the protester notified Regional Coordinator Marks that the results of Local Union 623’s March 2 vote-count had not yet been posted. Mr. Marks then spoke with Mr. Opalesky, who assured him that the results would be posted and the required affidavit would be filed. An affidavit was received via fax by the Regional Coordinator on March 18, 1996. On March 20, 1996, after checking the various sites where posting was required, Adjunct Regional Coordinator Joseph Kelly discovered that the results were posted at the Greyhound facility, but not at the Oregon Avenue UPS building nor the American Paratransit, Inc. location. Furthermore, Mr. Opalesky did not forward extra copies of the election results to stewards in the event that a posted notice was torn down.
Article III, Section 5 of the Rules requires the local union secretary-treasurer to post a copy of the official election tally sheet on all local union bulletin boards no later than seven days after the vote count and to maintain such postings for at least 30 days. Despite his assurances to the Regional Coordinator, Mr. Opalesky failed to comply with this section of the Rules.
Based upon the foregoing, 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 possible remedies, without any limitation. The broad scope of the Election Officer’s 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.
In the present instance, the officers of Local Union 623 have exhibited an intentional disregard of the Rules. Not only was the podium used for campaigning and actions taken to supplant the delegate election results, but the local union officers further failed to post the official tally for the delegate election on all designated bulletin boards and failed to maintain the postings for the required period. The Election Officer therefore orders the following strong remedial measures be taken:
(1) Local Union 623, its officers and agents, are hereby ordered to cease and desist from conducting a vote or poll of any kind which restricts the elected delegates and alternate delegates to the International convention as to how they vote for any candidate for International office.
(2) Within two (2) days of the date of this decision, Local
Union 623 is ordered, at its own expense, to copy and distribute to all members of the local union, via first-class mail, the attached notice from the Election Officer and the official tally for the delegate election, which should have been properly posted.
Jim Merritt
March 27, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Opalesky shall, within seven (7) days of this decision, submit to the Election Officer an affidavit detailing the steps that the charged parties have taken to comply with this order.
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
Peter V. Marks, Sr., Regional Coordinator
Joseph Kelly, Adjunct Regional Coordinator
NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION 623
FROM BARBARA ZACK QUINDEL,
IBT ELECTION OFFICER
At a recent membership meeting, the local union conducted a vote of the members for the purpose of instructing the local union delegates and alternates to the International convention as to how they should vote for candidates for International office. This action violated the Election Rules, which are designed to make sure the members, by casting individual secret ballots in a supervised election, select their delegates to the International convention and their International officers. I have instructed the local union not to conduct any vote or poll of any kind regarding members’ preferences of candidates for International office.
At a recent membership meeting, the president of Local Union 623 announced an upcoming rally for a candidate for general president. Because the Rules mandate equal treatment for all candidates, this action violated the Rules. The content of local union meetings must either be politically neutral or offer equal opportunity for all members to express their political views.
The results of the March 2, 1996 delegate election were not posted on all designated bulletin boards, in violation of the Rules. Therefore, I have ordered that the official results be sent to all members with this notice.
__________________________
BARBARA ZACK QUINDEL
ELECTION OFFICER
This is an official notice which must remain posted for 30 consecutive days and must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.