September 17, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Kim A. Shanahan
Ken Mee
September 17, 1998
Page 1
Kim A. Shanahan
727 Lockhaven Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
(650)355-1937
Ken Mee
42356 Greenbrier Park Drive
Fremont, CA 94538
(510) 226-7574
Stephen J. Mack, Sec.-Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 78
492 “C” Street
Hayward, CA 94541
(510) 889-0865
Tom Leedham Campaign Office
P.O. Box 15877
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 544-3388
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
(212) 358-0207
Rome A. Aloise, Sec.-Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 853
2100 Merced Street
Suite B
San Leandro, CA 94577
(510) 895-6853
Kim A. Shanahan
Ken Mee
September 17, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. PR-245-LU78-NCE
PR-253-LU78/853-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). Kim Shanahan, a member of Local Union 856 and a candidate for International trustee on the Tom Leedham “Rank and File Power” Slate (“Leedham Slate”) filed a protest (PR-245) against Local Union 78 for their failure to provide an accurate worksite list as required under the Rules. Ken Mee, a member of Local Union 287 and a candidate for regional vice-president on the Leedham Slate, filed a protest (PR-253) also alleging that Local Union 78 failed to provide an accurate worksite list and further alleging that Local Union 853 has failed to respond to his request for a worksite list, in violation of the Rules.[1]
Kim A. Shanahan
Ken Mee
September 17, 1998
Page 1
Due to the related nature of these allegations, they were combined for decision by the Election Officer. The protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn and Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.
On June 22, 1998 the Leedham Slate sent letters by regular U.S. mail requesting worksite lists from Local Unions 78 and 853. The Leedham campaign sent a second request for worksite lists by certified mail on August 11, 1998. When Local Union 78 finally did respond, it submitted a list replete with inaccuracies and formatted in a way that made the information unusable. Local Union 853 failed to respond to the second request.
The Rules Article VIII, Section 1(b) state:
Each . . . International Office candidate shall have the right to a current list of all sites, with corresponding addresses, where any and all Local Union members work. Requests for such worksite lists shall be made to the Local Union’s Secretary-Treasurer or principal executive officer in writing and shall be honored within five (5) days. Such worksite lists shall be arranged by employer name.
Local Union 78 eventually submitted a revised worksite list which comports with the requirements of the Rule, however the Election Officer notes with disapproval the amount of time and resources spent to attain a proper list from that local. Under these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes that, with respect to Local Union 78, further processing of this protest is unwarranted.
The Leedham Slate also eventually received a worksite list from Local Union 853. However, that list fell far short of the requirements of Article VIII. The list contained 17 post office boxes instead of street addresses, a facility that had been closed for three years, and it listed four corporate headquarters instead of work sites. Consequently, the Election Officer finds that the secretary -treasurer of Local Union 853, Rome Aloise, violated the Rules by failing to provide a current and accurate work site list.
Kim A. Shanahan
Ken Mee
September 17, 1998
Page 1
All local unions are reminded that access to worksite lists by candidates is an important right protected by the Rules. The failure of locals to adequately and promptly provide such lists constitutes interference with a member’s right to freely campaign. Furthermore, the worksite list must be current and accurate. The inclusion on worksite lists of post office boxes in place of street addresses, corporate headquarters instead of employee work sites, and outdated or stale addresses will continue to be treated by the Election Officer as a violation of the Rules.[1]
Accordingly, the protests are RESOLVED in part; and GRANTED in part.
When the Rules have been violated, the Election Officer “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Rules, Article XIV, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
The Election Officer orders that Local Union 853 provide a current and accurate worksite list via facsimile to the Leedham Campaign by the close of business day on Friday, September 18 with a copy of that same worksite list to the Election Officer via facsimile.
An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. In 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
Kim A. Shanahan
Ken Mee
September 17, 1998
Page 1
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
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator
[1] The Election Officer notes that Mr. Mee, a candidate on the Leedham Slate, was not the candidate who originally requested the worksite list in writing from Local Union 853 and therefore cannot protest the fact that he never received a list from them.
[1]Where a local union’s worksite list contains both street addresses and post office boxes for the same locations, it is not necessary to delete the Post Office boxes; however, a note of explanation must accompany the worksite list.