September 1, 1998
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Gillian Furst
September 1, 1998
Page 1
Gillian Furst
3813 Harriet Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55409
Brad Slawson
Teamsters Local Union 544
2636 Portland Avenue, South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Thomas W. Leedham
c/o Thomas W. Leedham Campaign Office
Post Office Box 15877
Washington, DC XXX-XX-XXXX
C. Thomas Keegel, Secy. - Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 544
2636 Portland Avenue, South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Gillian Furst
September 1, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-169-LU544-NCE
Gentlemen:
Gillian Furst, a member of Local Union 544, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Brad Slawson. Mr. Slawson is employed as a business representative by Local Union 544. The protester alleged that Mr. Slawson attempted to disrupt a campaign meeting held to support Tom Leedham, a candidate for general president. Mr. Slawson admits that he attempted to attend the meeting, but denies that he was disruptive.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.
The basic facts are not disputed. The protester chairs the Minnesota Committee to Elect Tom Leedham (“Committee”), a campaign organization of IBT members reporting to the Election Officer as an “independent committee.” See, Rules, Definitions, Paragraph 22, p. xvii. The Committee organized a meeting for those who support or who are interested in supporting Mr. Leedham, coinciding with his recent campaign appearance in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on July 11, 1998. According to a flyer, the Committee extended an open invitation to any IBT member “who supported the reform movement.” Prior to Mr. Leedham’s candidacy, the Committee supported Ron Carey for general president.
Gillian Furst
September 1, 1998
Page 1
Mr. Slawson is a supporter of James P. Hoffa, a candidate opposing Mr. Leedham. The protester contends that Mr. Slawson disrupted a 1996 Carey campaign rally and attacked Mr. Carey through his comments and opinionated questions. The protester expressed concern that Mr. Slawson would “wreck” the meeting planned in support of Mr. Leedham in the same way.
Mr. Slawson responded to the assertion that he had disrupted the 1996 Carey meeting as follows:
I have been at two previous campaign meetings, both for Carey. Never once did Carey tell me to shut up. At the first meeting, I did ask lots of questions. I raised my hand each time and Carey recognized me each time. At the second meeting, they said they weren’t going to take questions. I asked, “What? No questions? None at all?” [An organizer of the meeting] said, “No.” And that was it. I didn’t say anything more.
For the July 11 meeting, the Committee rented a room in a local Minneapolis restaurant. The meeting was scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. Just prior to the starting time, the protester and several other event organizers were advised that Mr. Slawson was in the restaurant parking lot. Erik Jensen, a meeting organizer, met Mr. Slawson at his vehicle. When Mr. Slawson indicated that he intended to attend the meeting, Mr. Jensen replied, “No, you’re not coming.” Additional arguments ensued. Mr. Slawson began to walk toward the restaurant, still insisting that he had a right to attend the meeting. Near the door of the meeting room inside the restaurant, some of the organizers physically blocked the hall to prevent Mr. Slawson from entering. Ultimately, the organizers called the police.
The members blocking Mr. Slawson’s way continued to do so and, after about 30 minutes, the police left without taking any action. Mr. Slawson never entered the meeting room and left the premises after the meeting began.
The protester does not contend that Mr. Slawson threatened anyone or tried to force his way into the meeting. Nevertheless, she maintains that Mr. Slawson’s behavior was disruptive. In the protester’s view, the organizers of the event were kept busy preventing Mr. Slawson from entering the room when they should have been greeting arriving guests and campaigning for Mr. Leedham.
Gillian Furst
September 1, 1998
Page 1
Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules prohibits retaliation and harassment by any person or entity against any other member for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules. Violations occur when members engage in physically or verbally aggressive behavior that threatens actual harm. Passo, P-469-LU705-CHI et seq. (February 29, 1996) (finding intent to provoke physical confrontation violates Rules), aff’d in relevant part, 96 - Elec. App. - 124 (KC) (March 13, 1996).
Article VIII, Section 11(a) protects a member’s right to participate in campaign activities and the Election Officer has held that the freedom to engage in campaign activity is fundamental to the conduct of a fair and open election. Giacumbo, P-210-IBT-NYC (December 5, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. pp. - 45 (KC) (December 18, 1995) (“[A]ny act which constitutes coercion, interference or harassment of any member in the exercise of these essential rights is forbidden.”). Campaign activities which do not qualify as general union functions are essentially private and may be attended only upon consent of the promoters. Rudolph, P-861-TDU-PNW (August 29, 1996) (with respect to private TDU meeting, “members have the right to associate with like-minded members and to exclude others if they choose”); Davies, P-1062-LU213-CAN (October 29, 1996); Pollack, P-008-LU732-NYC (October 29, 1990), aff’d, 90 - Elec. pp. - 8 (November 7, 1990).
The Rules are tolerant of “the natural discourse that arises as a result of campaign-related activities,” even where heated. Furst, P-949-LU430-PNJ (October 9, 1996) (“heated discussion” between protester and charged party does not violate Rules); Mee, P-1153-LU853-CSF (November 13, 1996) (“nasty exchange” between Carey and Hoffa supporters which was “heated and emotional” did not violate the Rules). The Rules have even been interpreted to permit competing campaign rallies in a single local union parking lot where the rental agreement did not clearly grant exclusive possession to either group. Powell, P-1086-LU413-CLE (November 20, 1996).
While certain types of conduct may rise to the level of interfering with a member’s right to assemble and support candidates of their choice, the conduct by Mr. Slawson does not rise to that level.
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
Gillian Furst
September 1, 1998
Page 1
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
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator