This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

              May 9, 1996

 

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

 

Steve Clark

14032 Hyland Road

Surrey, BC V3W 2C4

 

David P. Kozak, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 464

490 E. Broadway

Vancouver, BC V5T 1X3

 

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-756-LU464-CAN, & Decision on Remand

 

Gentlemen:

 

Steve Clark, a candidate for delegate from Local Union 464 on the Steve Clark (Clark) slate, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (Rules) against David P. Kozak, the secretary-treasurer of Local Union 464 and a candidate for delegate on the Kozak-Lacroix-Carey (Kozak) slate.  The protester alleges that Mr. Kozak discriminated against the candidates opposing the Kozak slate in the delegate election by using the Local Union 464 office, telephone records and telephones for campaigning.

 

The protest was assigned to Regional Coordinator Gwen K. Randall.

 

For approximately two and a half hours after the close of work on April 29, 1996, the Kozak slate used telephone numbers and telephones supplied by Local Union 464 at the union hall to campaign by calling union members.  On or about April 30, 1996, Mr. Kozak called the protester and offered the Clark slate access to the union office, telephones and telephone records for two and a half hours during an evening to be chosen by the Clark slate. 

Mr. Kozak also advised Mr. Clark that the Kozak slate would not use the union office for telephone banking again.  The Clark slate used the union office for telephone banking on


May 1, 1996.  On May 9, 1996, Mr. Kozak offered Roger Rook, the independent candidate for delegate, a similar opportunity to use the union office, telephone and telephone records to campaign.  Mr. Rook, who lives 500 miles from the union hall, indicated that he probably would not come to the union office to campaign by  telephone.

 

Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules prohibits a union from using its funds, facilities, equipment, etc., directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual, 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 writing of the availability of such assistance.      

 

Mr. Kozak provided his own slate access to the union office, telephone and telephone numbers for campaigning without giving advance, written notice to all candidates of the availability of these resources, as required by the Rules.  However, shortly after the local union made union resources available to the Kozak slate, Mr. Kozak offered the other candidates equal access to these resources.  Under these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes that further processing of this protest is unwarranted.  The protesters complaint, as stated in this protest, has been addressed and appropriate relief  has been provided.

 

Accordingly, this protest is now RESOLVED.

 

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

Gwen K. Randall, Regional Coordinator

 

May 20, 1996

 

 

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

 

Steve Clark

14032 Hyland Road

Surrey, BC V3W 2C4

 

David P. Kozak, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 464

490 E. Broadway

Vancouver, BC V5T 1X3

 

Re:  Election Office Case No.              P-756-LU464-CAN, DECISION ON REMAND

 

Gentlemen:

 

Steve Clark, a candidate for delegate from Local Union 464 on the Steve Clark (Clark) slate, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (Rules) against David P. Kozak, the secretary-treasurer of Local Union 464 and a candidate for delegate on the Kozak-Lacroix-Carey (Kozak) slate.[1]  The protester alleges that Mr. Kozak discriminated against the candidates opposing the Kozak slate in the delegate election by using the Local Union 464 office, telephone records and telephones for campaigning on behalf of the Kozak slate.

 

The Election Appeals Master allowed remand for reconsideration at the request of the Election Officer.  The Election Officer issues the instant decision on reconsideration.

 


The protest was assigned to Regional Coordinator Gwen K. Randall.

 

For approximately two and a half hours after the close of work on April 29, 1996, the Kozak slate used telephone numbers and telephones supplied by Local Union 464 at the union hall to campaign by calling union members.  On April 30, 1996, Mr. Kozak offered the Clark slate access to the union office, telephones and telephone records for two and a half hours during an evening to be chosen by the Clark slate.  Mr. Kozak also advised Mr. Clark that the Kozak slate would not use the union office for telephone banking again.  The Clark slate has not used the union office for telephone banking.  On May 9, 1996, Mr. Kozak offered

Roger Rook, the independent candidate for delegate, a similar opportunity to use the union office, telephone and telephone records to campaign.  Mr. Rook, who lives 500 miles from the union hall, indicated that he probably would not come to the union office to campaign by telephone.  He has not used the union resources offered him.

 

Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules prohibits a union from using its funds, facilities, equipment, etc., directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual, 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 writing of the availability of such assistance.      

 

Mr. Kozak provided his own slate access to the union office, telephone and telephone numbers for campaigning without compensating the union at fair-market value and giving advance, written notice to all candidates of the availability of these resources, as required by the Rules.  The Election Officer has determined that the fair-market value of the union resources used for campaigning by the Kozak slate may be determined by dividing the sum of the monthly rental, including telephone rental, by the number of hours per month that the local union office is open, and multiplying that quotient by the number of hours the office was used by the Kozak slate.  Here, the monthly rental of $3,618.00 and monthly telephone rental is $357.06.  The union office is open approximately 170 hours per month.  The Kozak slate used the office two and a half hours.  Thus, the fair-market value of the use of the union office and telephone by the Kozak slate is $58.45.  Mr. Kozak has demonstrated to the Election Officer that this sum has been re-paid from his personal funds to the local union.

 

On May 1, after Mr. Kozak utilized local union resources on behalf of his own slate, he offered the Clark slate equal access to the union resources used by the Kozak slate.  On May 9, he made the same offer to Roger Rook, the independent candidate for delegate.  Under these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes that further processing of this protest is unwarranted.  The protesters complaint, as stated in this protest, has been addressed and appropriate relief has been provided.

 

Accordingly, this protest is now RESOLVED.

 


Steve Clark

May 9, 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

Gwen K. Randall, Regional Coordinator

 

 


[1]In Kozak, P-516-LU464-CAN, et seq. (April 6, 1996), the Election Officer declared the local union delegate election held March 6, 1996 to be void.  A re-run election was scheduled for May 17, 1996.