April 3, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Robert Yolland
245 Hickory Avenue
Tracy, CA 95376
Local 439 Gamaza-Miraglio
‘96 Leadership Team
c/o Pat Miraglio, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 439
1531 E. Fremont Street
Stockton, CA 95201
Re: Election Office Case No. P-660-LU439-CSF
Gentlemen:
Robert Yolland, a member of Local Union 439, coordinator of the Carey campaign slate for 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 mailed literature from the Gamaza-Miraglio ‘96 Leadership slate’s campaign used the names of four shop stewards without their authorization, and represented them as supposedly endorsing the Gamaza-Miraglio slate. Therefore, he claims, the campaign mailing was misleading.
The Gamaza-Miraglio slate responds that the endorsements were obtained as part of petitions circulated some time ago and that the stewards identified in the protest signed the petitions at that time.
Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross investigated the protest.
Robert Yolland
April 3, 1996
Page 1
The Gamaza-Miraglio slate submitted photocopies of documents bearing the title “Endorsement Petition” and bearing signatures of the stewards involved in this protest. The petition states:
We, the undersigned Teamsters Local 439 Union Stewards do hereby declare our endorsement and support for the “Bob Gamaza/Pat Miraglio Leadership Team” in the 1996 Local 439 Delegates and Officers Election.
One of the stewards confirmed that he had in fact signed such a petition and the two others who were interviewed did not remember if they had signed petitions.
Article VIII, Section 11 gives IBT members the right to fully participate in campaign activities and support the candidates they choose. Here, the evidence does not support the contentions of the protester that the endorsements were obtained without the authorization of the stewards.
As to the contention that the mailing was misleading, the Election Officer has repeatedly held that the Rules are not intended to censor campaign materials or ensure the accuracy and truth of campaign materials. As stated in Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996) (quoting Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (February 21, 1991)):
The Rules . . . secure for all candidates the freedom to fully exercise political rights through solicitations, support and the distribution of campaign literature. The Election Officer has consistently applied the Rules so as to safeguard the exercise of these political rights. The Rules neither prohibit nor regulate the content of campaign literature.
Thus, even if the use of endorsements here were misleading, the campaign mailings do not thereby violate the Rules.
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
Robert Yolland
April 3, 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
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator