May 29, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Thomas B. Fahling
May 29, 1996
Page 1
Thomas B. Fahling, Treasurer
United Minnesota Teamsters Coalition
413 19th Avenue, N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Sue Mauren
Teamsters Local Union 320
3001 University Avenue, S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Timothy S. Mulcrone
Teamsters Local Union 320
3001 University Avenue, S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Thomas B. Fahling
May 29, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-778-LU320-NCE
Gentlepersons:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Thomas Fahling, a member of Local Union 320. Mr. Fahling alleges that Sue Mauren and Tim Mulcrone, candidates for delegate for Local Union 320, sent a letter to the members is which they “offer a benefit to the membership that only they can provide by virtue of their positions as the Assistant Trustee and employees of” Local Union 320. The protester contends that the sending of the letter, which was produced and distributed with union funds, was intended to influence the delegate election in violation of the Rules. The protester further contends that the health and welfare fund of which the charged parties claim to be trustees either does not exist or did not exist until very recently. Finally, the protester contends that the charged parties are not, in fact, trustees of the fund and, as a result, have no authority to offer fund benefits to the members.
Thomas B. Fahling
May 29, 1996
Page 1
The charged parties deny that the protested letter was intended to influence the delegate election. Ms. Mauren and Mr. Mulcrone state that they distributed the letter to stewards--not to all members as the protester claims--in their capacities as trustees of the Health and Welfare Fund. They state that the purpose of the letter was to expand membership in a dental plan that had become available to members of bargaining units willing to incorporate the plan, which requires a monthly payment of $33 per member, into their collective bargaining agreements. According to the charged parties, the letter was mailed on May 14, 1996 because the date was the earliest that they had fund documents to distribute to the stewards.
Regional Coordinator Judith Kuhn investigated the protest.
Ballots for the re-run of Local Union 320’s delegate election will be counted on
April 30, 1996. The investigation revealed that on April 14, 1996 Ms. Mauren and Mr. Mulcrone sent a letter on local union letterhead entitled “OPEN LETTER TO THE LOCAL #320 MEMBERSHIP” to local union stewards. The letter advised the membership that a dental plan had been negotiated between the local union and Delta Dental. A summary of the plan was attached. Costs for production and distribution of the letter and attachment were borne by the local union which states that it expects to be reimbursed by the Health and Welfare Fund. The letter explained that the plan was available at the rate of $33 per month per members. The letter further states:
Teamsters Local #320 has nearly 10,000 members spread over 278 bargaining units. You, as a member of one of these units, should talk with your fellow members and decide if this is a benefit that you would like to take part of. The decision would ultimately be made by a majority vote of the unit. In the event that your unit wants it, please contact your Business Agent. Your Business Agent will then introduce this plan to your employer and negotiate this plan as a payroll deduction and possibly negotiate that the Employer contribute part of the $33.00 per month.
Please remember that this is not an automatic benefit by virtue of your membership at Local #320. It still needs to be negotiated if your unit wants it.
(emphasis in original).
The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(c), strictly prohibit the use of union resources in campaigning. The Rules otherwise permit campaigning by any member of the IBT if there is no utilization of union resources and the member is not campaigning during his or her work hours.
Where the IBT or an affiliate is accused of making a campaign contribution through its activities, the “purpose, object or foreseeable effect” of the conduct must be examined in light of the union’s legitimate activities and functions. To find a violation, the “foreseeable effect” of the expenditure must be direct, as opposed to a possible or incidental byproduct.
Thomas B. Fahling
May 29, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer has previously held that “restrictions on campaigning must not be read so broadly as to restrict the right and the responsibility of union officers to conduct their official business . . .” Martin, et al., P-010-IBT-PNJ, et seq. (August 17, 1995) (decision on remand), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). The use of local union resources to communicate issues of legitimate union business to the membership does not constitute campaigning even if the communication is issued during a crucial phase of the delegate election. In the present protest, the charged parties communicated to the stewards and, through them, the members, that the dental plan was an available but not automatic benefit, and provided them with information on how to begin the process of obtaining the benefit. Informing members of changes in their benefit options is clearly a legitimate function of the local union’s Health and Welfare Fund and is not, as a result, campaigning.
In addition, the charged parties have provided the Election Officer with documentary evidence that indicates that the protested letter was issued in the normal course of the business of the fund and its proximity to the delegate election, while suspicious, is coincidental. The process of constructing the plan offered to the membership in the protested letter began, at the latest, in April 1995, well before the start of the delegate election process.[1] Since that time, planning and negotiations continued until the contract with Delta Dental was finalized on March 18, 1996. By late March, the trust for the Dental Plan had been established, and Ms. Mauren and Mr. Mulcrone officially began serving as trustees on April 1. Accordingly, the transmission of the protested letter on May 14, 1996 resulted from the normal progression of the development of the Dental Plan trust. The Election Officer has previously held that communications arising from the course of ongoing and longstanding disputes or negotiations that pre-date the election process do not violate the Rules simply because they are issued during the election process. See Quattlebaum, P-387-LU509-SEC (March 6, 1996).
For the foregoing reasons, 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
Thomas B. Fahling
May 29, 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, D.C. 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
Judith Kuhn, Regional Coordinator
[1]Local Union 320’s nomination meeting was held on February 6, 1996.