April 15, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Karla Reid
3380 Sonoma Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Bob Carr, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 624
1371 Neotomas Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Re: Election Office Case No. P-656-LU624-CSF
Gentlepersons:
Karla Reid, a member of Local Union 624, and a candidate for delegate from that local union, 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”). The protester alleges that the Notice of Nominated Candidates (“Notice”) was not posted at her workplace within five days of the nomination meeting for Local Union 624 and that the Notice which was posted thereafter did not correctly identify the name of her slate.
Local Union 624 and Bob Carr, its secretary-treasurer, admit that the notices were not posted, explaining that the name of the slate on which Ms. Reid is running was changed after the nomination meeting, and they were waiting to receive a revised Notice from the Regional Coordinator.
Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross investigated the protest.
Article II, Section 6 of the Rules requires that a Notice of Nomination be posted within five days of the meeting at which candidates for delegates are nominated.
Karla Reid
April 15, 1996
Page 1
Local Union 624 held its nomination meeting on February 22. The slate declaration received from Ms. Reid and the other candidates on her slate identified the slate as the True Teamster slate. On February 26, the Regional Coordinator sent the Notice reflecting the results of the nomination meeting, with an Election Notice, to the local union for posting. Also on February 26, Ms. Reid notified the Regional Coordinator that the slate wished to change its name to Local 624’s Membership slate. On February 27, the Regional Coordinator’s office sent a letter reporting the desired name change to the local union.
On February 29, Ms. Reid again called the Regional Coordinator to make sure that the name change had been reported. Apparently, Mr. Russell, the business agent for Local
Union 624, failed to understand the local union’s responsibility to post the Notice, and was waiting for the Regional Coordinator to prepare the revised Notice.
By March 18, Mr. Carr, concerned about Local Union 624’s compliance with its responsibilities, asked Mr. Russell if the required notices had been posted. Mr. Russell reported that they had not, because the local union was waiting to receive the revised Notice from the Regional Coordinator’s office. Mr. Carr then called Regional Coordinator Ross, who told him to start posting the notices immediately.
Because of another misunderstanding, the local union then began to post the original set of nomination notices. The Notice correctly listed the candidates on Ms. Reid’s slate, but not the amended slate name. On March 20, Ms. Reid informed the Regional Coordinator of the error. The local union was then instructed by the Regional Coordinator to begin posting the revised Notice as soon as possible.
By March 29, the revised Notice had been posted on all of the bulletin boards. The ballots with the amended slate name were mailed on March 25.
Local Union 624 failed to comply with the requirement that the notice of nomination be posted in timely fashion, even though it relied on the Regional Coordinator’s practice of supplying it with election notices for posting. In Snow, P-368-LU25-ENG (March 6, 1996), the Election Officer noted that the local union had violated the Rules even if it had relied upon advice from a representative of the Election Office in failing to post a timely notice. Thus, Local Union 624 was responsible for posting the Notice on time, with the amended slate name.
Accordingly, the protest is GRANTED.
The purpose of the notice requirement is to inform the local union members of the candidates in the election. The Election Officer finds that this purpose was not significantly impaired here, because the original notice, although late and incorrect as to the slate’s name, told members that the election would be held and who the candidates were. Moreover, the local membership received complete and correct information when the revised notices were posted, and again when ballots were mailed. Under these circumstances, although there has been a technical violation, no remedy shall be ordered.
Karla Reid
April 15, 1996
Page 1
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