June 2, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Ken Mee
June 2, 1998
Page 1
Ken Mee
42356 Greenbrier Park Drive
Fremont, CA 94538
Robert D. Younger, Secy. - Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 492
4269 Balloon Park Road, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Robert Koslowski
Teamsters Local Union 492
4269 Balloon Park Road, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Ken Mee
June 2, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-114-LU492-EOH
Gentlemen:
Ken Mee, a candidate for International vice-president, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). Mr. Mee alleged that certain statements in “An Open Letter to IBT Western Region Vice-President Ken Mee” (“Letter”) is a continuing violation of the Rules by Local Union 492 Secretary-Treasurer Robert D. Younger and that the statements contained in the Letter have a chilling effect on the democratic process implemented by the Consent Decree. Mr. Mee states that even if Mr. Younger “is not directly responsible for this letter, he provided information to others who were.”
This protest was assigned to Deputy Election Officer Benetta M. Mansfield.
On April 13, 1998, Mr. Mee filed a protest (PR-083) against two officers of Local Union 492, one of which was Mr. Younger, alleging that Mr. Younger wore a Hoffa sweatshirt at a meeting of employees. The protested letter purports to be from the “Rank and File Teamsters for a Corruption Free Union, Local 287, San Jose, California.” The statement protested by Mr. Mee reads as follows:
Our Union lost 518 million while you were in office, Ken and you know nothing about that. But you do know when someone wears a “Hoffa Now” sweatshirt to a Carhaul Work Rules meeting on a Saturday. Seems like you have your priorities all wrong, pal.
Ken Mee
June 2, 1998
Page 1
The Election Officer has consistently held that the Rules “neither prohibit nor regulate the content of campaign literature.” Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (February 21, 1991). Rather, as the Election Officer stated in Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996), “[t]he goal to be protected is free speech.” See Landwehr, P-201-LU495-MOI (November 15, 1995); Braxton, P-304-LU623-PHL (May 21, 1991) (“The model for free and fair Union election is that of partisan political elections . . . . The cardinal principle is that the best remedy for untrue speech is more free speech, with the electorate being the final arbiter.”).
Indeed, comments in campaign literature, whether truthful or not, support a “policy of encouraging free and open debate in internal union affairs,” thereby supporting the essential goals of the Consent Decree. See Mora, P-186-LU186-CLA (October 19, 1995). The Letter is clearly campaign literature directed against Mr. Mee’s candidacy. Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that the Letter is protected by 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 (1) 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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
MGC:chh
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master