This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

October 23, 1998




David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


David A. Eckstein

35 E Street, NW, #110

Washington, DC 20001


Dale Arthur

42 Ridgewood Drive

Alexandria, KY 41001


Jim Powell

200 St. Benedict Lane

Florissant, MO 63033


Sam Carter

Executive Assistant to Acting

   General President Tom Sever

Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001


Tom Sever, Acting General


Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001



Ray Benning Jr., Director

IBT Airline Division

6242 West Chester Pkwy, Suite 250

Los Angeles, CA 90045


Billie Davenport, President

Teamsters Local Union 2000

2850 Metro Drive, Suite 225

Bloomington, MN 55425


David L. Neigus

Acting General Counsel

Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001


Tom Leedham Campaign Office

P.O. Box 15877

Washington, DC 20003


Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.

Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure

113 University Place

New York, NY 10003

David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


Re: Election Officer Case Nos. PR-197-IBT-SCE






David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


David Eckstein (PR-197), a member of Local Union 661, IBT Director of Field Services, and a candidate for International Trustee on the Tom Leedham Rank and File Power Slate (“Leedham Slate”); Dale Arthur (PR-200), a member of Local Union 100 and an IBT International Representative; and Jim Powell (PR-201), a member of Local Union 688 and an IBT International Representative, filed pre-election protests pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Acting IBT General President and General Secretary-Treasurer Tom Sever and Executive Assistant to the Acting General President Sam Carter.  Mr. Sever is a candidate for General Secretary-Treasurer on the John Metz Slate (“Metz Slate”).


The protesters allege that Messrs. Sever and Carter retaliated against them because of their support for the Leedham Slate by ordering the cessation of an ongoing campaign addressed to contract negotiations with Northwest Airlines.  The campaign had been coordinated between Field Services and Local Union 2000, and was cancelled just before the occurrence of rallies scheduled for August 7, 1998 in ten Northwest hubs. Mr. Powell additionally alleges that this action, together with earlier actions that drastically changed his IBT job responsibilities, constitutes a pattern of retaliation due to his affiliation with the Leedham Slate.[1]  Mr. Arthur additionally alleges that he was removed from an assignment with Local Union 710 in Chicago, Illinois in retaliation for his support of the Leedham Slate.  The IBT denies all of the allegations.


Because the protests all allege that Mr. Carter and Mr. Sever retaliated against individuals based upon their affiliation with the Leedham Slate, the Election Officer consolidates the protests for decision.  These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator J. Griffin Morgan and Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.


I.              Field Services Division Assistance to Local Union 2000 on the

Northwest Airlines Contract Campaign                                                                                                                                                            

For nearly two years, the Northwest Airlines flight attendants, represented by Local Union 2000, have been in contract negotiations with Northwest Airlines (“Northwest”).  As early as mid-May, 1998, Local Union 2000 President Billie Davenport had corresponded with

Mr. Sever to request that the IBT Communications and Research Departments provide assistance on a contract campaign.


On June 11, 1998, Mr. Eckstein telephoned Mr. Leedham and agreed to run on the Leedham Slate for International Trustee.  On June 12, it was announced that Mr. Sever would run as general secretary-treasurer on the Metz Slate.  On June 13, Mr. Eckstein’s affiliation with the Leedham Slate was announced publicly.


David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


In June 1998, Local Union 2000 began planning rallies in ten cities to support Northwest contract negotiations.  Ann Toombs, Local Union 2000 Recording Secretary and Contract Action Team (“CAT”) Chairperson, worked closely with Mr. Eckstein to plan these rallies.  Thus, on July 1, 1998, Mr. Eckstein sent Ms. Toombs a rally mobilization plan for rallies to be held “at each one of ten Northwest base airports on Friday, August 7.”  On July 7, Craig Merrilees from the IBT Communications Department sent Mr. Eckstein a covering memo for flyers that would be shipped to Local Union 2000 representatives at Northwest bases.  The memo also made suggestions regarding how the Field Services staff could help the base representatives get organized.  On July 9, Mr. Eckstein sent Ms. Toombs instructions on preparing for the rallies and scheduled a conference call for July 15.  He also attached a list of Field Services staff assignments.[2]  On July 14, Ms. Toombs sent out the fliers for the rallies along with a cover letter to Local Union 2000 members. 


The Northwest contract campaign, and the involvement of Field Services in that campaign, was known to the highest officers of the IBT.  At the July 20 -21, 1998 meeting of the IBT General Executive Board (“GEB”), a written report from the Field Services Division was presented.  The report stated, in relevant part:




Will be working with the Airline Division by assisting in planning rallies at approximately ten (10) locations throughout the country and helping to get membership involvement with these rallies.


A transcript of an audiotape of portions of the meeting was provided to the Election Office by the IBT.  The transcript reveals that Mr. Sever read this sentence to the GEB meeting verbatim from the Field Services report.  Sam Carter, Mr. Sever’s Executive Assistant, admits attending this GEB meeting although he does not recall whether he was present for the report on Field Services.


Ray Benning, director of the IBT Airline Division, is based in Los Angeles.  On July 22 or 23, 1998, while Mr. Benning was working at the IBT headquarters in Washington he was approached by Mr. Carter in the cafeteria.  Mr. Carter asked Mr. Benning if he was aware that Field Services “had people at Northwest Airlines around the system?”  Mr. Benning responded that he was not aware and that no request for assistance from Field Services had been made through him.  Mr. Carter asked Mr. Benning to put this in writing.  On July 30, 1998,

David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


Mr. Benning sent the following memo to Mr. Carter by fax:


TO:                            General President’s Office                            ATTN:  Sam Carter

FROM:              Ray Benning

DATE:              7-30-98

SUBJECT:              N/W Airlines -F/A’s

MESSAGE:              On August 7, 1998 we have a rally set for Minneapolis.  I have no other personal knowledge of a Contract Campaign.  If there is one, the Director has been kept in the dark.  This is totally wrong, and not consistent with IBT policy.     [signed] Ray. 


Several days later Mr. Carter called Mr. Benning and advised him that all of the Field Services staff assigned to the Northwest campaign would be sent home.  Mr. Carter mentioned to Mr. Benning that El Paso, Texas[3] and San Jose, California had shown up on Field Service expense reports.  Mr. Benning replied that those were not Northwest base cities.


On July 31, 1998, without consulting Mr. Eckstein, Ms. Davenport or Ms. Toombs,

Mr. Carter called back the Field Service staff assigned to the Northwest campaign.[4]  Mr. Carter told the Election Office investigators that at the time of this action, he was not aware of the existence of an ongoing Northwest Airlines contract campaign nor was he aware of the involvement of IBT departments other than Field Services in such a campaign.  At another point in his testimony, however, Mr. Carter stated that he had learned of the Northwest campaign before he had talked to Mr. Benning. 


David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


Although Mr. Carter was “not sure” of how he learned of the Northwest contract campaign, he “guess[ed]” that he learned of it by approving travel vouchers for the staff travel necessary to conduct the campaign.  At another point in his testimony Mr. Carter stated that he had seen “travel vouchers and different things about the Northwest campaign,” and that the travel related to “the different people in field services that would be involved in it [the Northwest campaign].”  This information prompted Mr. Carter to talk to Mr. Eckstein about the Northwest campaign.  Mr. Carter testified that he had that conversation before speaking to Mr. Benning. As far as documents, the IBT’s official travel form shows the kind of information Mr. Carter would see as a routine matter.  For example, on July 7, 1998, Mr. Carter approved a travel authorization for Mr. Powell, a Field Services staffer,  which stated that Mr. Powell would be working in Minneapolis from July 16 to August 8 on the “Northwest Event.”  Thus, the routine flow of documents requiring Mr. Carter’s approval, such as travel vouchers for field representatives executing the campaign, informed him that the campaign was ongoing, as well as when and where key events were to occur.[5]  See Eckstein, PR-135-IBT-SCE, (August 14, 1998) at p.26-28, aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 369 (KC) (September 8, 1998) (finding that document flow informed

Mr. Carter about ongoing negotiations with Kroger).  Thus, there is evidence to support a finding that Mr. Carter knew of the Northwest contract campaign, and of the Field Services Division’s role in it, when he recalled the staff.  Mr. Carter acted to stop the campaign, and withdraw Field Services involvement, shortly before the ten-site rally was to occur.


Mr. Carter also testified that Ms. Davenport stated to him that she was not aware of any Northwest contract campaign rallies other than the one set for Minneapolis on August 7.  However, Ms. Davenport told an Election Office investigator that she did know about all of the ten planned rallies well before the end of July.  The Local Union 2000 Executive Board (which would include Billie Davenport) was copied on at least the July 14, 1998 mass mailing that stated the plan for a “Unity rally in our 10 Flight Attendant bases on August 7, 1998.”


David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


When Ms. Davenport learned that Mr. Carter had abruptly changed the campaign plans, she telephoned Mr. Carter and said that she wanted Field Services staff  to continue working on the campaign.  She told Mr. Carter that the staff was doing strictly Local Union 2000 work and asked for his support.  Mr. Carter replied to Ms. Davenport that no one had ever authorized the use of Field Services staff on the Northwest campaign.[6]  At that time, Mr. Carter refused to agree to reinstate the campaign.  Ms. Davenport told Mr. Carter that she had inadvertently failed to consult with Mr. Benning in planning the contract campaign or in seeking the assistance of IBT headquarters.  Ms. Davenport states, and the July 31 memo from Mr. Benning to Mr. Carter makes clear, that while Mr. Benning was aware of the August 7 rally scheduled for Minneapolis, he was unaware of the nine other rallies.


Ms. Davenport also telephoned Mr. Benning.  After a brief teleconference, Mr. Benning agreed to support the reassignment of Field Services staff to Minneapolis.  Mr. Benning also gave Ms. Davenport some advice on “following the chain of command” in the future and told her to drop him a note spelling out her request.  On July 31, Ms. Davenport sent a letter to

Mr. Benning requesting his assistance in having Field Services staff reassigned to all ten cities. 


On August 3, 1998, Mr. Benning sent two memos to Mr. Carter.  The first asked that Messrs. Powell and Halsted be reassigned to Minneapolis to assist Local Union 2000 in organizing for the August 7 rally.  In the second memo, Mr. Benning asked that the Field Services staff be reassigned to all of the cities planning rallies for the period “up to and including August 7, 1998” (emphasis in original).  Mr. Carter sent Messrs. Powell and Halsted to Minneapolis but did not reassign the Field Services staff to the other cities.[7]  He did not discuss the request with anyone from Local Union 2000 or with Mr. Benning.


On August 4, 1998, Ms. Davenport sent letters to Mr. Sever and Mr. Carter repeating her request for assistance from Field Services for the duration of the Northwest contract campaign. 

On August 6, 1998, Mr. Benning faxed another memo to Mr. Carter requesting assistance from Field Services for the campaign:


This morning at about 11:00 a.m. I received a call from

Ms. Anne Toombs, Recording Secretary of Teamsters Local Union

No. 2000.  She stated that she needed the Field Service people in

place at the following bases immediately:




Field Services is currently present in Minneapolis (MSP).  I informed Ms. Toombs that I had approved such on August 3, 1998 and faxed to your office for final approval.  I also spoke to

Mr. Dave Eckstein this morning, prior to speaking to Ms. Toombs,

and he said he spoke to you this week and you said his people are

David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


to stay home except for the two people assigned to MSP.[8]


Ms. Toombs is waiting for a return call seeking immediate assistance.


Please advise.


Mr. Carter called Mr. Benning to talk about the issue, but could not reach Mr. Benning. No further communication occurred regarding the staffing requests until after the August 7 rallies.  With the exception of Minneapolis, therefore, the Field Services staff did not assist any of the Northwest rallies in the week preceeding August 7.


On August 10, Mr. Benning wrote a letter to Mr. Eckstein requesting answers to numerous questions relating to Field Service’s planned assistance to the Northwest contract campaign.  On August 12, 1998, Mr. Eckstein replied with a detailed and thorough description of the role planned for Field Services in the campaign, including where each Field Services staff member would be deployed, the nature of their responsibilities, and the duration of their assignments.  On August 13, 1998, Mr. Benning sent a letter to Mr. Carter which stated, in relevant part, as follows:


On August 12, 1998 Brother Eckstein gave me a written response to my letter, that has now satisfied me.


I believe the contract campaign should now continue at Northwest Airlines and I am requesting you [sic] approval.


On August 14, the Election Officer issued his decision in Eckstein, PR-135-IBT-SCE (August 14, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. 369 (KC)(September 8, 1998).  In that decision, the Election Officer found that Messrs. Sever and Carter had retaliated against a number of Field Services staff and Division directors due to their support of or affiliation with the Leedham Slate.  Among other remedies imposed by the Election Officer, Mr. Sever and Mr. Carter were ordered to cease and desist from such retaliatory activities.


On August 17, 1998, Mr. Carter sent to Mr. Eckstein a copy of Mr. Benning’s letter of August 13 on which Mr. Carter had written “Eckstein Aug 12, 1998 [memo to Mr. Benning] is approved. [sic] and will be reviewed on a weekly basis.”  As of August 20, 1998, the Northwest contract campaign was proceeding with the full involvement of the Field Services staff as earlier envisioned by Ms. Davenport and Mr. Eckstein.


David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


The protesters contend that Mr. Carter’s intervention in the Northwest campaign, and specifically the withdrawal of Field Services assistance, constitutes retaliation against declared supporters of the Leedham Slate.  As in PR-135, which considered a similar allegation, the Election Officer weighs the facts carefully to avoid impinging on policy decisions properly within the IBT’s control.  The IBT has the right and the duty to continue to make policy decisions during the International election rerun process.  As the Election Officer first stated in Robbins, P-013-IBT-SCE (Merger of Specific Local Unions) (June 30, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 3 (KC) (July 26, 1995):


It is not the role of the Election Officer to scrutinize the general policy decisions of the International Union, except as they relate to [his] grant of authority.  The Election Officer, therefore, only would find a violation if there is evidence of a nexus arising to a violation of the Rules . . . .



The Rules, however, protect the right of IBT members to support the candidate of their choice and to refuse to support any candidate in this election.  As the Election Officer has stated,


[s]ince the Rules protect campaign activity as a personal right of members, the exercise of that right cannot be interfered with by labor organizations or employers, including the IBT as an employer.



Hoffa, P-812- IBT-NYC (August 16, 1996).  Therefore, the IBT is strictly prohibited from using the electoral preferences or activities of its employees as factors in deciding how to treat an employee. 


Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules provides:


Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.



David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


To demonstrate retaliation, a protester must show that conduct protected by the Rules was a motivating factor in the adverse decision or conduct in dispute.  The Election Officer will not find retaliation if he concludes that the union officer or entity would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protester’s protected conduct.  Gilmartin, P-032-LU245-PNJ (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 75 (KC) (February 6, 1996).  See Leal, P-051- IBT-CSF (October 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 30 (KC) (October 30, 1995); Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995).


In Eckstein, PR-135, the Election Officer determined that Mr. Sever and Mr. Carter made significant changes to the Field Services staff after Mr. Eckstein joined the Leedham Slate. The changes were sudden and abrupt departures from courses of action previously known to, and approved by, Mr. Carter and Mr. Sever.  The non-retaliatory explanations for these changes lacked documentation and corroboration.  Thus, the Election Officer found a violation of the Rules.


The facts here are similar to those found in PR-135. It is apparent that as early as May 14, 1998, Mr. Sever and Mr. Carter had notice of a contract campaign at Northwest and provided resources to support it.  Indeed, the campaign proceeded and was reported on by both Field Services and the Research Department at the General Executive Board Meeting in July 1998.   Mr. Carter approved field representative travel to target locations for the campaign.  Despite that conduct and prior knowledge, Mr. Carter canceled the contract campaign on July 31, 1998 one week before the scheduled holding of ten simultaneous rallies at ten airports significant to Northwest Airlines.  As in PR-135, Mr. Carter’s actions directly undercut the work of

Mr. Eckstein’s department, and reflect a change in the use of Field Services that occurred only after Mr. Eckstein’s affiliation with the Leedham Slate.  Mr. Carter offered no explanation for his action other than Local Union 2000's failure to obtain Mr. Benning’s prior approval to use Field Services.  Yet, Mr. Carter did not reinstate the campaign in time to meet the original schedule, even when Mr. Benning urged him to do so.  The campaign was only reinstated later, after the PR-135 finding of retaliation.  For these reasons, the Election Officer concludes that Mr. Carter’s actions in connection with the Northwest campaign were in retaliation for Mr. Eckstein’s affiliation with the Leedham Slate.  Messrs. Powell and Arthur were staff members affected by these actions because they were called off the campaign.  The Election Officer finds, however, that the retaliation was directed against Mr. Eckstein and not at Messrs. Powell and Arthur.


II.              Termination of Mr. Arthur’s Status as Personal Representative  


Mr. Arthur’s additional allegation in his protest involves Mr. Sever’s decision, communicated by a letter received by the protester on August 1, 1998, to remove Mr. Arthur from his assignment as a personal representative of the General President in Local Union 710.  Mr. Arthur states that since June 24, 1998, he has openly supported Mr. Leedham’s campaign, and that Mr. Carter’s actions were in retaliation for this support.


The Election Officer earlier found that the removal of Mr. Powell by Mr. Sever from a similar assignment as a personal representative to Local Union 710 did not violate the RulesIn  Eckstein, PR-135, the Election Officer stated as follows:


David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


Under the IBT Constitution, Mr. Powell served as the president’s representative at the pleasure of the Acting General President.  Even assuming that IBT electoral politics affected Mr. Sever’s decision about Mr. Powell, the Election Officer concludes that

Mr. Sever could properly determine that Mr. Powell was no longer

suitable to serve as his personal representative.  Since “[r]emoval

from an appointed union position because of . . . political rivalry is

not prohibited,” Wsol, Mr. Sever did not violate the Rules in

removing the protester as his personal representative.


Eckstein, p. 37


The Election Appeals Master affirmed the Election Officer’s decision, stating that:


It is undisputed that Powell was removed by Sever on July 16, 1998 from his assignment as personal representative of the General President in Local 710.  It is also undisputed that his dismissal followed the sending of a highly critical letter dated June 22, 1998 from Mr. Powell to Mr. Sever in which Powell a) announced his support for the Leedham Slate and b) denounced Sever as having failed to earn the trust of the rank and file.


Article VI, Section (f) of the IBT Constitution gives the General President the discretionary right to appoint members as his personal representatives who shall act on his behalf.  The job has no fixed term, and a designee may be removed at will at any time by the General President.  Indeed, designees have no specific responsibilities except “as the General President may determine.”  It is clear that such assignments are entirely personal in nature, such as those between a District Attorney and his assistant prosecutors, a Congressman and his office staff, or a President and his ambassadors.


Relying on our previous decisions in Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d 95-Elec. App. 17(KC) (October 10, 1995), the Election Officer stated that “it will not be a violation to remove a member from an appointed position if there was a basis for doing so independent of the election process.”


David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


I find that the personal denunciation of the Acting President by Powell in his letter of June 22, 1998 constitutes just such an independent basis.  Furthermore, Powell was not removed from his position as an International Representative but only as personal representative of the General President.


Eckstein, aff’d, 98-Elec. App. - 369 (KC)(September 8, 1998) (emphasis in original).


In a letter from Mr. Sever dated February 19, 1998, Mr. Arthur and International Representative Dan Basham were appointed as Mr. Sever’s personal representatives to Local Union 710 and were requested to “work with Personal Representative Jim Powell . . . .”  The letter stated that Messrs. Basham and Arthur would  “continue to act in this capacity until such time as a decision is rendered that Personal Representatives are no longer necessary.”


In a March 9, 1998 letter to Mr. Sever, Frank Wsol, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 710, specifically requested that Mr. Powell be removed from his assignment relating to Local Union 710, alleging that Mr. Powell was interfering with the ability of the local to fairly represent the membership and was engaged in conduct violative of the IBT Constitution.  On June 24, 1998, Mr. Arthur notified Mr. Sever by letter that he was supporting the Leedham Slate. On July 16, 1998, Mr. Powell was removed by Mr. Sever from his assignment to Local Union 710.


Patrick Flynn, president of Local Union 710 and an IBT International vice-president, informed an Election Office investigator that since March of 1998, he had continuously asked Mr. Sever to remove all of the personal representatives from Local Union 710.  Mr. Flynn stated that the personal representatives were seen as “watchdogs” for the International who did little to help the members, spent most of their time campaigning, and interfered with the autonomy of Local Union 710.  He said that Mr. Sever approached him at the July 21-22 GEB meeting and informed Mr. Flynn that he was “pulling Powell out of your local.”  When Mr. Flynn asked if he was also pulling out Messrs. Arthur and Basham, Mr. Sever acted surprised and stated that he did not know that they were there.  On July 28, 1998, Messrs. Arthur and Basham were removed from their assignments as personal representatives to Local Union 710 and were advised that they would be reassigned to assignments “with more pressing needs.”


According to the IBT, after having received numerous requests from representatives of Local Union 710, Mr. Sever removed Messrs. Arthur and Basham due to his belief in the importance of the autonomy of local unions and his desire to avoid the International “interfering” where it was not wanted.  An additional reason given by the IBT for the removal of the personal representatives was the fact that once Mr. Powell had been removed, it made no sense to have individuals originally assigned to assist Mr. Powell remain at the local without him.  The IBT also substantially corroborated Mr. Flynn’s account of events.


David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


The Election Officer finds that the requests of Local Union 710 for the removal of all personal representatives, including Mr. Arthur, constitute a basis for removal independent of the election process.[9]  Furthermore, the Election Officer notes that Mr. Arthur was not removed from his position as an International Representative but merely from his appointment as a personal representative.  Consequently, as was the case with Mr. Powell, the Election Officer fails to find any violation of the Rules with respect to Mr. Arthur’s removal.


III.              Mr. Powell’s Cumulative Claim of Retaliation


Finally, the Election Officer denies Mr. Powell’s additional allegation that Mr. Carter’s cancellation of the Northwest contract campaign, combined with earlier actions against

Mr. Powell, constitutes a pattern of retaliatory actions taken against him due to his affiliation with the Leedham Slate.  The Election Officer concluded that Mr. Carter’s actions were directed against Mr. Eckstein for his having joined the Leedham Slate, and that the changes in

Mr. Powell’s work were a consequence of that retaliation.  The Election Officer notes that

Mr. Powell failed to provide any substantive evidence supporting his allegation of a pattern of retaliation against him above and beyond that already presented and rejected in Eckstein, PR-135.


Accordingly, the protest in PR-197 is GRANTED; and the protests in PR-200 and PR-201 are DENIED.


              Although the Election Officer finds that the Rules were violated due to the retaliatory nature of the actions, he also notes that the Northwest contract campaign was completely reinstated by Mr. Carter on August 17, 1998.  Consequently, the Election Officer orders the following:


1) By the close of business on October 28, 1998, the attached notice must be distributed to all individuals working within the IBT headquarters, located at 25 Louisiana Ave., Washington, D.C., and distributed to all persons assigned to the Field Services Division as of July 31, 1998 whether or not those individuals work at IBT headquarters.


2) By the close of business on October 28, 1998, the attached notice must be posted on Local Union 2000 bulletin boards at work sites in Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Memphis, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco and Seattle.


David A. Eckstein

October 23, 1998

Page 1


3) By the close of business on October 28, 1998, Local Union 2000 will post the attached notice on its website, under a logo stating: “This Notice Posted By Order of the Election Officer.”  The Election Officer will supply the notice to Local Union 2000 on a disc formatted for the website.


An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the RulesIn re Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996)


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.







Michael G. Cherkasky

Election Officer




cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

J. Griffin Morgan, Regional Coordinator








In a recent decision, The Election Officer determined that I violated the Election Rules.  The Election Officer found that my July 31, 1998 direction that stopped the IBT Field Services Division from working on the Northwest contract campaign retaliated against Field Services Director David Eckstein because of his affiliation with the Leedham Slate.  I have been ordered to cease and desist from such conduct, and to have this notice distributed.


The Election Officer has directed me to remind IBT employees of their rights under the Rules:


·                      Every member of the IBT has a personal right to participate in campaign-related activity under the Rules.  This right extends to members employed by the International union.  Members may decide to support or oppose whomever they choose, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make campaign contributions.  The Rules also protect a member’s right not to become involved in the International officer election at all.


·                      Retaliation or the threat of retaliation by the IBT for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules is prohibited and will not be tolerated.


·                      Members are prohibited from using resources to campaign.


If you believe you have been retaliated against or threatened with retaliation based upon election-related activity, you may file a protest with the Election Officer at 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001; Telephone (800) 565 VOTE; Fax (202) 624-3525.



Sam Carter

Executive Assistant to the Acting General




This is an official notice that must remain posted until December 3, 1998, and must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.


Approved by Michael G. Cherkasky, IBT Election Officer


[1] Mr. Powell’s earlier claims of retaliation against him by Mr. Sever were denied by the Election Officer in Eckstein, PR-135-IBT-SCE (August 14,1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 369 (KC) (September 8, 1998).

[2]Mr. Eckstein assigned the following field staff to the scheduled rallies: Detroit (Arthur); Minneapolis (Powell, Halsted); Memphis (Jenkins, Davis, Lovan); Los Angeles (Raiter); Seattle (Teller); Honolulu (Blanchet); New York (Lazco); New Jersey (Wenzel); San Francisco (Blanchet); Boston (Murray) and Chicago (Keaton).

[3] The Election Officer believes that the El Paso reference is to the travel report of Tim Raiter who was assigned to cover the Northwest Los Angeles rally. Mr. Raiter reported traveling from El Paso on his report because he had an airline ticket that was about to expire from Dallas to El Paso.  Mr. Raiter, who lives in Dallas, states that in order to save the IBT money, he used the ticket to travel to El Paso and then drove from there to Los Angeles.  Mr. Raiter states that Mr. Carter never inquired about this entry on his travel report.

[4] On that same day, Mr. Eckstein received a memo from Mr. Carter which stated, in part, that: “ . . . effective immediately, no Field Service employee will be sent into any Director’s area, for any reason, without first consulting with and getting approval of the Director of that Division.”

[5] The transcript of the audiotape of portions of the July GEB meeting also revealed that Mr. Sever verbally reported that the IBT Research Department “continue[s] to assist Local 2000 in their contract campaign at Northwest Airlines . . . .”

[6] Ms. Davenport also stated that Mr. Carter mentioned the appearance of San Jose and El Paso on the expense reports, and she told him that she did not understand the relevancy of those cities to the Northwest campaign.

[7] Mr. Powell was in Minneapolis, working on the Northwest campaign, when Mr. Carter ordered the work stopped on July 31.  Mr. Powell had gone to Minneapolis on a travel authorization approved by Mr. Carter.  On or about August 3, 1998, Mr. Powell was ordered back to Minneapolis.

[8] Mr. Eckstein confirmed the content of this exchange.

[9] The Election Officer notes that Messrs. Flynn and Wsol do not support Mr. Sever in his candidacy as they are both strong supporters of James P. Hoffa for general-president. Consequently, the Election Officer fails to find that the requests for the removal of the representatives from Local Union 710 were themselves contrived as a pretextual method of allowing Mr. Sever to retaliate against the Leedham Slate.  Furthermore, the removal requests began prior to the formation of either the Metz Slate or the Leedham Slate.