May 1, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Horace A. Miranda
1017 W. 7th Street
Upland, CA 91786
Willis Bond, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 420
1221 N. Peck Road
South El Monte, CA 91733
Re: Election Office Case No. P-674-LU420-CLA
Gentlemen:
Horace A. Miranda, a candidate for delegate from Local Union 420, 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”) alleging that Local Union 420 Secretary-Treasurer Willis “Will” Bond failed to provide him with a complete work-site list, as required by the Rules.
The protester was nominated at the Local Union 420 nomination meeting held on February 25, 1996. On March 16, 1996, he requested a work-site list, pursuant to
Article VIII, Section 1(b) of the Rules, which entitles all candidates to receive “a current list of all sites . . . where any and all Local Union members work.” After receiving the initial work-site list on March 21 or 22, Mr. Miranda filed a protest with the Election Office on March 26, 1996, the same day on which the ballots in the local union delegate election were mailed. The Local Union 420 delegate election was then scheduled for April 16, 1996. The Election Officer deferred this protest for consideration post-election, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules.
Associate Regional Coordinator Glenn Rothner investigated the protest.
Horace Miranda
May 1, 1996
Page 1
In prior decisions, the Election Officer has interpreted the provision requiring provision of a work-site list strictly, finding a violation even when the list provided by the local union contained relatively few inaccuracies. See Chentnik, P-223-LU325-CHI, et seq. (December 18, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 52 (KC) (January 10, 1996), wherein the Election Officer found that “[a]lthough the local union attempted to comply with [Section 1(b)], some work-sites where a few members of Local Union 325 work may have been omitted from the work-site list, in violation of Article VIII, Section 1(b).” See also Carroll, P-279-LU313-PNW (January 23, 1996).
In response to the protest, Mr. Bond stated that he was willing to meet with
Mr. Miranda to supplement the initially-provided work-site list with additional information. In view of the election set for April 16, 1996, the Associate Regional Coordinator encouraged the parties to meet promptly to attempt resolution of the protest. The protester met with the Local Union 420 secretary-treasurer who supplemented the work-site list on March 29, 1996.
Associate Regional Coordinator Rothner supervised the ballot count. Of the 1,329 ballots mailed out to the members of Local Union 420, 353 were cast and 279 were counted. Local Union 420 elected two delegates. The election results for Local Union 420 were as follows:
Delegates:
Name Slate Votes
Willis “Will” Bond Bond 208
John Conaway Bond 203
Horace “Hoss” Miranda Members Honor & Pride Team 143
Raymond “Jr.” Espinosa Members Honor & Pride Team 95
The Election Officer would normally conclude that the protester’s complaint has been resolved because the relief requested by the protester has been provided. However, this protest is being considered in the post-election context. Pursuant to Article XIV, Section 3(b) of the Rules, the issue is whether any conduct giving rise to a violation of the Rules may have affected the outcome of the election. A violation of the Rules alone is not grounds for setting aside an election unless there is a reasonable probability that the election outcome may have been affected by the violation. Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, Local 6, 391 U.S. 492, 507 (1968). A violation creates a presumption that the outcome was affected. Id. Once a violation is established, therefore, the Election Officer determines whether an effect exists and determines mathematically whether the effect was sufficient in scope to affect the outcome of the election. Id. Dole v. Mailhandlers, Local 317, 711 F. Supp. 577, 581 (M.D. Ala. 1989).
Here, notwithstanding the omissions from the initial work-site list, the evidence establishes that the protester obtained greater access to the local union membership than did the members of the slate which opposed the protester’s slate. See In Re: Platt, 96 - Elec.
Horace Miranda
May 1, 1996
Page 1
App. - 144 (KC) (March 29, 1996) (considering in determination of impact upon election whether protester used alternate means of communication while denied access by employer for campaigning). While the protester posted leaflets on bulletin boards and campaigned in person at work sites, the opposing slate neither posted leaflets nor campaigned in person at work sites. Neither slate mailed campaign literature. The opposing slate obtained no unfair benefit from any omissions in the initial work-site list. See Id. (also considering whether opposing slate enjoyed undue advantage from denial of access to protester).
Further, the omissions from the work-site list were remedied quickly. Relief was provided to the protester three days after the ballots were mailed. While there may have been an advantage to obtaining the full work-site list earlier in the pre-election process, the protester requested a work-site list late in the election campaign and the protest was not filed until March 26, 1996.
Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that the initial violation of the Rules could not have affected the outcome of the election.
Based on the foregoing, 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
Associate Regional Coordinator Glenn Rothner