August 10, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Mauricio Terrazas
August 10, 1998
Page 1
Mauricio Terrazas
3800 Bradford Street, No. 233
La Verne, CA 91750
Randy Cammack, Secy. - Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 63
845 Oak Park Road
Covina, CA 91724
Thomas W. Leedham
c/o Thomas W. Leedham Campaign Office
Post Office Box 15877
Washington, DC XXX-XX-XXXX
Mauricio Terrazas
August 10, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-141-LU63-PNW
Gentlemen:
Mauricio Terrazas, a member of Local Union 63, 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 Randy Cammack and Local Union 63. Mr. Cammack is the secretary - treasurer of Local Union 63 and a candidate for at-large vice - president on the Hoffa Unity Slate. Mr. Terrazas alleges that Mr. Cammack permitted James P. Hoffa, candidate for general president, to campaign at a union facility without granting equal time to other candidates. Mr. Cammack responds that the Hoffa Campaign rented an area within the Local Union 63 facility located in Rialto, California, for a campaign rally on June 13, 1998. According to Mr. Cammack, all other candidates were offered access to the site on equal terms. Mr. Cammack and Local Union 63 further contend that the protest is untimely and that the protester is retired.
The protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Paige Keys.
By letter dated April 15, 1998, Mr. Hoffa offered to rent the “offices and grounds” of Local Union 63 “for an upcoming Hoffa rally on Saturday, June 13, 1998.” Mr. Cammack accepted the offer on behalf of Local Union 63 by letter of April 30, 1998. According to the letter, the Hoffa Campaign was granted permission to use the property of Local Union 63 upon payment of a $250.00 rental fee and on condition that all necessary security, clean-up services, equipment, and insurance were provided.
Mauricio Terrazas
August 10, 1998
Page 1
In addition to the letter accepting Mr. Hoffa’s proposal, Local Union 63 sent simultaneous letters to candidates Ken Hall and Tom Leedham. The letters stated that certain Local Union 63 property had been rented by Mr. Hoffa and advised that access was available to them “on the same terms.” There is no evidence that either Mr. Hall or Mr. Leedham have arranged to rent any facilities of Local Union 63. The letters to the candidates were dated April 30, 1998.
In a letter dated June 8, 1998, the protester wrote Mr. Cammack advising him that “[I]n order for you to abide by the election rules you must present a member or a representative of both Slates at your June 13 rally.” The letter further stated that the protester had been “authorized” to speak on behalf of Mr. Leedham. On June 10, 1998, Local Union 63 informed the protester in writing that the rally supporting Mr. Hoffa was not union sponsored and that, although it could not permit a Leedham rally to occur on June 13 due to the tardiness of the request, all candidates had been notified of the property’s general availability on the same terms.
The rally to support the candidacy of Mr. Hoffa took place as scheduled on June 13, 1998. The protest was dated June 19, 1998, and was received in the Election Office five (5) days later.
Campaign activity within a union hall is not prohibited by the Rules. Such activity may take place, so long as the Rules requiring equal access and opportunity to candidates are strictly observed. See Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4).
Local Union 63 challenges the protest on the grounds that the protester is retired. The Election Officer does not normally entertain protests filed by retirees. Lester, P-1217-LU669-PGH et. seq. (November 27, 1996); Branch, CONV-22-IBT (July 18, 1996). The investigation established, however, that Mr. Terrazas is an active member of Local Union 63.
As to the timeliness of the protest, the Rules at Article XIV, Section 2(b) state that pre-election protests “must be filed within two (2) working days of the day when the protester becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived.” The requirement to promptly file protests is an important part of the election process. The short time limits are designed to quickly bring alleged violations of the Rules to the attention of the Election Officer. The Election Officer’s remedies are most effective when applied to a Rules violation filed in a timely manner. Mee, PR-048-LU70-PNW (May 28, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App - 338 (KC) (January 28, 1998).
The correspondence establishes that the protester was aware that Mr. Hoffa had arranged to rent the grounds at Local Union 63 at least five (5) days prior to the scheduled date of the event. Despite this advance notice, the protest was not filed until six (6) days later after the event took place. The protest is therefore untimely. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Rules were violated.
Mauricio Terrazas
August 10, 1998
Page 1
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
Paige Keys, Adjunct Regional Coordinator