September 18, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Walter Engelbert
September 18, 1998
Page 1
Walter Engelbert, Sec.-Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 670
750 Browning Avenue, S.E.
Salem, OR 97302
Tom Leedham
c/o Tom Leedham Campaign Office
P.O. Box 15877
Washington, DC 20003
David L. Neigus, Acting General Counsel
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
Walter Engelbert
September 18, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-239-LU670-EOH
Gentlemen:
Walter Engelbert, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 670, 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 Tom Leedham and the IBT. Mr. Leedham is the Director of the IBT’s Warehouse Division and a candidate for general president. Mr. Englebert alleged that issues of the Food Processing News, the Teamsters Warehouse News and the Warehouse News August, 1998, were “produced and distributed as part of a coordinated, sophisticated scheme to utilize the Union resources to promote the candidacy of Tom Leedham and the Leedham Slate.”
The protest was investigated by Election Office Counsel David S. Paull.
On August 20, 1998, a letter was sent to the protester acknowledging receipt of the protest and requesting “all information relevant to the allegations contained in the protest.” During a subsequent telephone conversation, the protester informed the Election Officer’s representative that his protest would be processed through the offices of his legal representative. On September 10, 1998, a letter was prepared for delivery to the protester’s legal representative by facsimile, requesting a written position statement and supporting evidence by the close of business Monday, September 14, 1998. Before the letter could be delivered, the Election Officer’s representative received a telephone call from the protester’s legal representative. During that conversation, the protester’s representative agreed to supply supporting evidence and a written position statement, if at all, by September 14 as stated in the September 10, 1998 letter.
Walter Engelbert
September 18, 1998
Page 1
As of September 15, 1998, no evidence or position statement has been received by the Election Officer.
The protester bears the burden of proof to present evidence that a violation has occurred. Rules, Article XIV, Section 1. The Election Officer has consistently denied protests when the protester offers no evidence to corroborate and support his allegations. Hoffa, PR-043-LU385-SCE (January 9, 1998); Pike, P-278-LU952-CLA (January 30, 1996);
For the foregoing reasons, 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:mk
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master