October 7, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Wade Allen
October 7, 1996
Page 1
Wade Allen
5067 Valdel Road
Hahira, GA 31632
Ken Hilbish, President
Teamsters Local Union 528
2540 Lakewood Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30315
Doug Mims, Vice President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
2540 Lakewood Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30315
John Sullivan, Associate General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Wade Allen
October 7, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-897-LU528-SEC
Gentlemen:
Wade Allen, a member of Local Union 528, 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”) against the Executive Board of Local Union 528 and its president, Ken Hilbish.
The protester alleges that a general membership meeting and picnic, sponsored and financed by Local Union 528 on August 10, 1996, was held to “support the Ron Carey Slate.” Mr. Allen specifically claims that campaigning on behalf of the Carey slate was conducted by International Vice President Doug Mims and occurred at both the general membership meeting and the union-financed picnic. Mr. Mims is a member of the Ron Carey No Corruption-No Dues Increase Slate and a candidate for International vice president in the pending election.
Local Union 528 asserts that the protest is not timely. On the merits, Mr. Hilbish maintains that the general membership meeting and picnic were not arranged to provide a campaign forum for the Carey slate, but were legitimate union functions. According to Local Union 528, Mr. Mims did not campaign at either function.
Wade Allen
October 7, 1996
Page 1
The protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Maureen Geraghty.
The investigation disclosed that Local Union 528 draws its membership from the entire state of Georgia. Every general membership meeting held prior to August 10, 1996 has taken place in Local Union 528’s Atlanta union hall. The location of the general membership meeting of Saturday, August 10, 1996 was Valdosta, Georgia. This was the first of several general membership meetings scheduled to take place outside of Atlanta.[1]
Approximately 400 members of Local Union 528 work in the Valdosta area. Mr. Hilbish states that these field meetings were arranged in connection with a campaign promise he made to the membership during the local officer election campaign in 1994. During that campaign, according to Mr. Hilbish, he pledged to hold general membership meetings around the state in order to better serve members.
A “family picnic” was held after the close of the general membership meeting in Valdosta. In addition to the Valdosta meeting, Local Union 528 planned to sponsor a similar picnic after the meeting in Augusta and will also sponsor a picnic after the meeting scheduled for Marietta. The purpose of these picnics, according to Local Union 528, is to foster solidarity among the local’s membership.
The protester attended the meeting of August 10, 1996 in Valdosta. He did not remain for the picnic. On that date, he was traveling on a family vacation. Mr. Allen returned to work on August 26, 1996, the day that the protest was filed. He states that on that day he spoke with two persons, another member and a steward. The protester formed the basis for his allegation that campaigning took place at the Valdosta picnic during those conversations.
There is no dispute that a campaign literature distribution table was set up at the entrance to the meeting room and that campaign literature supporting Mr. Carey was displayed there, next to non-campaign paraphernalia and IBT literature. All witnesses agree that campaign literature was distributed in the parking lot, outside the site of the meeting.
The Election Officer has previously determined that Local Union 528 maintains a campaign literature distribution table at the entrance to its Atlanta union hall. The policy which governs the use of this table is to permit the distribution of campaign literature supporting any candidate or group of candidates for delegate or International office. The Election Officer has previously established that this literature distribution is non-discriminatory, under the Rules. See Deane, P-354-LU528-SEC (February 21, 1996).
Wade Allen
October 7, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Mims is not a member of Local Union 528. However, he is a current member of the IBT General Executive Board and a vice president to the Southern Region. He and his wife attended the general membership meeting in Valdosta after reading about it in a Local Union 528 newsletter. In addition to attending the picnic, Mr. Mims stated that he engaged in several IBT related activities on August 10, including meeting with several groups of employees and a business agent. He had previously planned to drive through Valdosta for personal reasons and consequently did not seek reimbursement from the IBT for his traveling expenses.
The undisputed evidence is that Mr. Mims was introduced at the general membership meeting in his official capacity. No reference was made to his current candidacy or to the pending International election. There is no evidence that Mr. Mims made any public statement at the meeting in support of any candidacy, including his own, or referencing the International election. Mrs. Mims wore a Carey campaign shirt to the meeting. Numerous International officers have attended Local Union 528 general membership meetings over the years.
The protester submitted five names as potential witnesses. Two of these persons did not return the Regional Coordinator’s telephone calls. Two others stated that they did not attend the picnic. The remaining witness, Mr. Scarbrough, attended the picnic for about 90 minutes. He did not observe any campaign activity at the picnic. No other witness provided evidence that
Mr. Mims campaigned while he circulated through the crowd and Mr. Mims himself denies having campaigned. Mr. Mims admits, however, that his wife brought campaign literature to the picnic and placed it on a table in the picnic area. At least five Local Union 528 business agents wore Carey t-shirts while attending the picnic.
Article XIV, Section 2(b) requires a protester 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.
Here, there is a 16-day delay between the events objected to and the filing of the protest. Mr. Allen was on vacation on the day of the protested event, and claims his vacation status was the cause of the delay as he did not obtain reports about the picnic until his return from vacation.
The Election Officer has not treated time limits as an absolute jurisdictional requirement, but rather as a prudential restriction. Hoffa, P-788-IBT-EOH (June 18, 1996); Blake, P-712-LU630-CLA (April 29, 1996). This meeting was the first to be held outside the Atlanta union hall. At the time of the investigation, several similar meetings had been planned by Local Union 528. Under these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes it will better serve the underlying purposes of the Rules to resolve both aspects of this protest on the merits.
The initial issue to be resolved is whether there is any evidence of improper campaign activity. It does not violate the equal-access provisions of the Rules for a candidate to attend a local union meeting or function if campaigning does not take place. Carbone, P-887-LU313-PNW (September 12, 1996). Campaigning has been defined by the Election Officer as “advocacy for or against a candidate.” Giacumbo et al., P-001-IBT-PNJ et seq.
(September 29, 1995), aff’d in relevant part, 95 - Elec. App. - 32 (KC) (November 1, 1995); See also Caffrey, P-047-JC16-NYC (October 19, 1995).
Wade Allen
October 7, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer first concludes that there is no evidence to sustain a Rules violation as to the activities at the general membership meeting. Campaigning outside the meeting hall is permitted by the Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(a). Wright, P-492-LU528-SEC (March 6, 1996). A literature table has been placed at the entrance to Local Union 528 union meetings in Atlanta throughout the election period. It has been previously considered and determined to be in compliance with the Rules. Deane, supra. There is no evidence that the non-discriminatory policy with respect to this literature distribution table was changed at the meeting in Valdosta.[2] There was no other evidence of improper campaigning at the general membership meeting of August 10, 1996.
As to campaigning by Mr. Mims at the general membership meeting or the picnic, this allegation is denied by Mr. Mims. No witness provided any evidence to the contrary. The only witness who could be contacted and had any first-hand knowledge of the picnic did not observe any campaigning.
Mr. Mims admits that his wife brought campaign literature and placed it on a table in the picnic area. The evidence does not establish a violation of the Rules, at Article VIII,
Section 11(d), as there was no other request to distribute campaign literature. See Knox, P-926-JC43-MGN (September 30, 1996). The business agents who wore campaign-related clothing at the picnic are not in violation of the Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(b). Under that provision, member union officers and employees “retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right . . . to openly support or oppose any candidate.”[3] There is no evidence to establish that any campaigning took place at the picnic in violation of 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:
Wade Allen
October 7, 1996
Page 1
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
Maureen Geraghty, Adjunct Regional Coordinator
[1]The September meeting was held in Augusta. An October meeting is scheduled for Marietta.
[2]The witnesses further agree that no member asked to place literature on the table which supported the campaign of any other candidate.
[3]The Election Officer’s Advisory on Wearing of Campaign Buttons and Other Emblems, issued on September 20, 1995, states that the Rules protect the right of IBT members, including union officers and employees, “to wear campaign emblems on buttons, t-shirts or hats while working.” (Citations omitted.)