Protest Decisions

November 13, 1998

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL

Brian F. King

November 13, 1998

Page 1

Brian F. King

2457 Kalmia Street

Eugene, OR 97404

Tom Leedham

c/o Tom Leedham Campaign Office

P.O. Box 15877

Washington, DC 20003

Stefan Ostrach, Union Rep.

Teamsters Local Union 206

1860 NE 162nd Avenue

Portland, OR 97230

Bill Zimmerman, Vice President

Teamsters Local Union 206

1860 NE 162nd Avenue

Portland, OR 97230

Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.

Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure

113 University Place

New York, NY 10003

Del Gilmore

3880 W. 18th Avenue

Eugene, OR 97402

Rick Weathers

1356 D Street

Springfield, OR 9747

Brian F. King

November 13, 1998

Page 1

Re:              Election Office Case No. PR-352-LU206-EOH

Gentlemen:

Brian F. King, a member and candidate for secretary-treasurer of Local Union 206, 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”).[1]  The protester alleges that Stefan Ostrach, a representative of the IBT Warehouse Division and an employee of Local Union 206, and Tom Leedham, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 206 and candidate for general president in the IBT International Officer Rerun Election, have threatened him and his slate members, in violation of the Rules. 

Brian F. King

November 13, 1998

Page 1

The protester claims that Mr. Ostrach threatened Del Gilmore and Rick Weathers, his slate members running for local union office, by warning them that there would be consequences for supporting the protester’s slate and running against Mr. Leedham.  The protester claims that on October 21, 1998, he received an anonymous postcard through the mail that stated, “Dear Traitor and Opportunist: What goes around, comes around.  You are going to be very, very sorry!”  The protester also alleges that after Local Union 206's executive board meeting on October 8, 1998, Bill Zimmerman, vice-president of Local Union 206, told the protester that he had no right to challenge Tom Leedham for the position of Local Union 206's secretary treasurer, that the protester was ruining Mr. Leedham’s chances for election as IBT general president and that the protester did not deserve to be around.  The protester maintains that these alleged threats are directly related to the International Officer Rerun Election because of Mr. Leedham’s candidacy for general president and the concurrent timing of both elections.  The protester has requested a federal restraining order against Messrs. Leedham, Ostrach and Zimmerman and protection for his slate members and family.

The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Kathryn A. Naylor.

Mr. Leedham did not respond to the protester’s allegations.  Mr. Ostrach admits that he had heated discussions with Messrs. Gilmore and Weathers, but claims that these conversations were solely concerning Local Union 206's election and not related to the International Officer Rerun Election.  Mr. Ostrach admitted that he told Mr. Gilmore that running on the protester’s slate against Mr. Leedham for local union office would not make any sense and was an attempt by people who support Mr. Hoffa to mount a campaign against Leedham to distract him from his International duties and embarrass Mr. Leedham in the International election.

Mr. Zimmerman denied that he told the protester that he had no right to challenge

Mr. Leedham for secretary-treasurer in the local union, that the protester was ruining

Mr. Leedham’s chances for election as IBT president or that the protester did not deserve to be around.  Mr. Zimmerman claims that according to the Executive Board, the local union would have to spend $12,000 to retain a neutral entity to supervise the election and that he told the protester that he was a “back stabbing piece of puke and the local would have to spend $12,000 of the members’ dues for his f______ ego.”  Messrs. Ostrach and Zimmerman denied any involvement or knowledge in sending the anonymous postcard received by the protester.

The jurisdiction of the Election Officer is set forth at Article I of the Rules:

Brian F. King

November 13, 1998

Page 1

Pursuant to the Consent Order, the Election Officer has the authority to supervise all phases of the International Union delegate and officer elections, including where necessary, the authority to conduct, overturn or rerun any phase of that election.  The Election Officer has the authority to hear and determine, with the Election Appeals Master, protests and appeals concerning the election.  The Election Officer is authorized and obligated to certify election results. 

Actions of local union members and officers are not within the jurisdiction of the Election Officer unless there is a connection between those actions and the International Officer Rerun Election.

The investigation of this matter fails to reveal any connection between the alleged threats and the International election.  The threat on the anonymous postcard, on its face, does not make any reference to the International officer election and in a October 23, 1998 letter to Mr. Leedham, the protester stated that he took the threat [in the postcard] “to be directly related to the upcoming election in Local 206.”  Further, the evidence failed to establish who sent the anonymous postcard. 

Mr. Leedham did not respond to the protester’s allegations in this case, however, the Election Officer notes that the protester has not made any claims that he has had any threatening conversations or interactions with Mr. Leedham regarding the International Officer Rerun Election.

The Election Officer finds that Mr. Ostrach’s remarks about Mr. Leedham’s candidacy for IBT general president in conversations with Messrs. Gilmore and Weathers, were made to convince them not to run on the protester’s slate against Mr. Leedham in the local union officer election. The Election Officer also finds that Mr. Zimmerman’s remarks to the protester after the executive board meeting were similarly related to the protester’s candidacy in the local union officer election.  Since the Election Officer has no jurisdiction over local union elections,  Messrs. Ostrach and Zimmerman’s remarks as they pertain directly to the local union officer election do not violate the Rules.

Assuming arguendo, that Mr. Ostrach’s remarks were an attempt to deter Mr. Gilmore from running in the local union election to benefit Mr. Leedham so he would not be distracted or embarrassed in the International Officer Rerun Election, the exchanges with Messrs. Ostrach and Zimmerman would be characterized as “heated discussions” that do not violate the Rules.  See Furst, P-949-LU430-PNJ (October 9, 1996); Mee, P-1153-LU853-CSF (November 13, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 282 (KC) (November 22, 1996) (nasty exchange between Carey and Hoffa supporters found not to violate the Rules).

Based on the foregoing, the protest is DENIED.

Brian F. King

November 13, 1998

Page 1

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

cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master