June 20, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Garnet Zimmerman
June 20, 1996
Page 1
Garnet Zimmerman, President
Teamsters Local Union 31
1 Grosvenor Square
Delta, BC V3M 5S1
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
John Sullivan, Associate General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Louis Lacroix, Vice President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
2540 Daniel Johnson, Suite 804
Laval, Quebec H7T 2S3
Diana Kilmury, Vice President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
2612 E. 47th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5S 1C1
Charles Thibault, Vice President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
1194 Matheson Boulevard, E.
Mississauga, Ontario L4W 1Y2
Val Neal
Teamsters Local Union 938
1194 Matheson Boulevard, E.
Mississauga, Ontario L4W 1Y2
Brad Swannie
10823 85A Avenue
Delta, BC V4C 2V2
Garnet Zimmerman
June 20, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-780-CAN-SCE
Gentlepersons:
Garnet Zimmerman
June 20, 1996
Page 1
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 Garnet Zimmerman, president of Local Union 31. Mr. Zimmerman alleges that Teamsters Canada Vice Presidents Louis Lacroix and Charles Thibault, Local Union 464 Secretary-Treasurer David Kozak, Vice President-At-Large Diana Kilmury, General President Ron Carey, Brad Swannie, a member of Local Union 31, and Val Neal, a member of Local Union 938, used union resources to campaign and campaigned on paid union time, in violation of the Rules, while attending the bi-annual convention of the Canadian Labour Congress (“CLC”) in Vancouver during May 1996. Specifically, the protester alleges that the charged parties failed to attend convention functions and campaigned at work sites in the Vancouver area instead.
The charged parties respond that the protest is untimely. Further, they state that their attendance at the CLC convention constituted legitimate union business and that the protested work-site visits were legitimate union activities at which no campaigning took place.
Mr. Carey states that while in Vancouver to attend the CLC convention as a guest he used the opportunity to meet and talk with Teamsters in the area. He denies, however, that he campaigned at any of the visited work sites. While the charged parties admit to attending a campaign event while at the convention, they state that this event took place away from the convention site and after normal business hours. They argue, therefore, that participation in the event was incidental to their attendance at the CLC convention.
Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens investigated the protest.
Article XIV, Section 2(b) requires protesters to file “within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested.” The short time limits are important to ensuring that alleged violations of the Rules are quickly brought to the attention of the Election Officer in order to afford the greatest opportunity for applying an effective remedy if a violation is found.
The protest was docketed by Election Office staff on May 28, 1996, seven business days after the last protested event occurred. The investigation revealed, however, that the protest was received at the Election Office during the evening of Friday, May 24, 1996. Because of the Memorial Day weekend in the United States, the protest was not docketed until the following Tuesday. Accepting this fact still means that five days elapsed between the end of the CLC convention and the filing of the protest.[1]
The protester contends that while he attended the CLC convention he was unaware of the activities which he eventually protested. He states that he was not made aware of them until May 22, 1996 when he received a telephone call from a member who had knowledge of these events. Mr. Zimmerman filed this protest within two business days of that call.
The Election Officer finds it reasonable that Mr. Zimmerman would not necessarily have known of the activities of the charged parties until he was informed later. Given the fact that the protested events did not occur at the convention site, and that Mr. Zimmerman obtained the information relatively quickly after the convention’s end, the Election Officer will not find his protest untimely. As a result, the merits of this protest will be considered.
Garnet Zimmerman
June 20, 1996
Page 1
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.
The CLC’s bi-annual convention was held in Vancouver between May 14 and May 16, 1996. Mr. Carey was an invited guest to the conference, and the CLC paid his expenses. The expenses of the other charged parties who traveled to Vancouver were paid by their local unions or the IBT. Mr. Carey attended a CLC “fraternal dinner,” attended the opening remarks at the convention, and participated in a CLC demonstration against Canadian federal government labor and social policies.
The investigation revealed that Mr. Carey, accompanied by one or more of the other charged parties, visited five work sites in the Vancouver area during the dates of the convention. On Tuesday, May 14, 1996, Mr. Carey and Mr. Kozak, along with three Local Union 464 business agents met with members at the Dairyland work site in the jurisdiction of Local Union 464. Later that day, Mr. Carey, Ms. Kilmury, and Mr. Swannie met with members at the Clark Reefer work site in the jurisdiction of Local Union 31.
On Wednesday, May 15, 1996, Mr. Carey and Ms. Kilmury visited members working at a movie site in the jurisdiction of Local Union 155 and later, at an Ocean Cement work site in the jurisdiction of Local Union 213. The following day, Messrs. Carey and Swannie and
Ms. Kilmury visited a UPS work site in the jurisdiction of Local Union 31.
Each of these visits, with the exception of the UPS visit, occurred while the convention was in session. The protester, however, presented no evidence to indicate that the charged parties campaigned while visiting these work sites. The investigation revealed no evidence to indicate that Mr. Carey and his escorts did anything other than meet with members and discuss non-campaign issues of importance to the union membership. The fact that Mr. Carey, as IBT general president, took advantage of his attendance at a function in Vancouver to visit local members does not indicate that he violated the Rules, and the purpose of his visit falls squarely within the role and duties of the general president so long as he did not campaign.
The charged parties do admit, however, that they attended a campaign function while in Vancouver. The investigation revealed that this function took place after the conclusion of conference business on May 15, 1996. The Election Officer has previously stated that
candidates may campaign while attending union conferences. Such campaigning, if it does not interfere with the candidate’s attendance at or participation in the conference is deemed
Garnet Zimmerman
June 20, 1996
Page 1
incidental to union business and, thus, permissible under
Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules.[2]
See Wise, P-317-LU728-CHI (February 21, 1996); Theodus, P-753-IBT-SCE (May 22, 1996). Thus, as long as the charged parties attendance at the CLC convention was legitimate union business, their attendance at the campaign function does not violate the Rules.
The CLC is an association of Canadian labor organizations akin to the AFL-CIO in the United States. Teamsters Canada is an affiliated member of the CLC just as the IBT is a member of the AFL-CIO. The Election Officer has previously held that IBT officers who are invited to attend AFL-CIO functions and who do so using union funds do not violate the Rules. See Gilmartin, P-032-LU245-PNJ (decision on remand) (December 12, 1995), Sullivan, P-052-LU14-SCE (decision on remand) (March 28, 1996). The investigation revealed that the charged parties who traveled to Vancouver using union or CLC funds did so to attend the conference and that these individuals participated in several activities at the conference. They did not attend all conference activities, using the time instead to conduct IBT business at area work sites. As the charged parties were at the conference on legitimate union business, their attendance at the evening campaign function was incidental to that business and did not 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
Garnet Zimmerman
June 20, 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
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator
[1]This takes into account that Victoria Day was observed in Canada on May 20, 1996.
[2]Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules states, in relevant part:
No candidate or member may campaign during his/her working hours. Campaigning incidental to work is not, however, violative of this section. Further, campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not violative of this section.