January 16, 1997
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Teresa S. Shaw
28207 Ajilwood Court
Manifee, CA 92584
Re: Election Office Case No. Post-34-LU630-EOH
Dear Ms. Shaw:
A post-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 3(a) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
Teresa Shaw, a member of Local Union 630. Ms. Shaw alleges that, despite two requests made to representatives of the Election Officer via a toll-free telephone number established by the Election Officer, she never received a ballot for the IBT International officer election.
This protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Patrick Plummer.
Specifically, Ms. Shaw alleges the following: In late November, she requested that a ballot be sent to her current address. She spoke with a representative of the Election Office who verified her address, telephone number and social security number. The representative told her that the Election Office was compiling a list of union members who had not received a ballot and that a new ballot would be mailed. Ms. Shaw never received a ballot. On December 3, 1996, she again contacted the Election Office. A representative of the Election Officer assured her that a ballot would be mailed to her current address no later than the following day. No ballot was received.
Teresa S. Shaw
January 16, 1997
Page 1
In preparing for this mail ballot election, the Election Officer recognized that, for a variety of reasons, some small fraction of members who were eligible to receive a ballot may not get one in the initial mailing. Because of this, the Election Office operated a toll-free telephone number for members to call if they had not received their ballot. The toll-free number was part of the Election Office’s operation of a boiler room, which was staffed by the Election Officer’s computer consultant and a staff of over 30 individuals. Among their tasks was logging telephone calls and receiving members’ requests for new or duplicate ballots.
The Election Officer’s investigation into this protest included a review of the computer log kept by the boiler room staff relating to member ballot requests. The log indicates that
Ms. Shaw contacted the boiler room on two occasions. On November 18, the protester called requesting a ballot. She was informed that no duplicate ballots could be sent to members until after November 20, and that she would have to call again to request a ballot if the original mailed ballot was not received. The purpose of the Election Officer’s directive was to ensure that ballots originally mailed were given sufficient time to reach members.
Ms. Shaw again called the boiler room on December 2. At that time, the Election Officer’s representative verified Ms. Shaw’s address, telephone number and social security number. A mailing label and ballot package were generated and mailed on December 2 or 3. While Ms. Shaw unfortunately did not receive her ballot, the investigation establishes that
Ms. Shaw’s request for a duplicate ballot was logged on December 2, and that the ballot was mailed to her by the following day.
In consideration of the foregoing, Ms. Shaw’s 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