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

CONFIDENTIAL -- EOHQ WORK PRODUCT

 

 

December 2, 1998

 

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

 

1



CONFIDENTIAL -- EOHQ WORK PRODUCT

 

 

Luis A. Ortiz

3924 West Muriel Drive

Phoenix, Arizona  85308                                                                                   

Jim Edgmon

1512 West Garden Street

Mesa, Arizona  85201


 

 

1



CONFIDENTIAL -- EOHQ WORK PRODUCT

 

 

 

Re:  Election Office Case No.  PR-421-LU104-EOH

 

Gentlemen:

 

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Luis Ortiz and Jim Edgmon, members of Local Union 104, against Kimberly Funk, another member of Local Union 104.  The protesters assert that Funk “violated our freedom of speech and our right to encourage members to vote, regardless of their candidate of choice.”

 

1



CONFIDENTIAL -- EOHQ WORK PRODUCT

 

 

The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter Gimbrere.

 

The protesters allege that on November 17, they were at the offices of Southwest Administrators picking up pension brochures and talking to office staff there about the International Officer Rerun Election. The office staff at Southwest Administrators are members of Local Union 104 and were reminding them to vote.  At that time, another Local Union 104 member who also works in the office, Kimberly Funk, told them, “If you guys don’t shut up and leave, and quit talking campaign and election talk, I am going to file charges on you.” The protesters allege that they felt intimidated by this remark.

 

The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(a) and (b) provide that all IBT members have the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right “to openly support or oppose any candidate [and] to aid or campaign for any candidate.” Article VIII, Section 11(f) prohibits retaliation or threats of retaliation by a member against another member for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules.  In this case, while the protesters may have found Funk’s statement or her tone of voice rude or inappropriate, they do not constitute intimidating conduct that threatens

actual or potential harm in violation of the Rules

 

Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.

 

 

1



CONFIDENTIAL -- EOHQ WORK PRODUCT

 

 

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one 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 N. Capitol Street NW, Suite 445, Washington, D.C. 20001, facsimile (202) 624-3525.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Michael G. Cherkasky

 

1



CONFIDENTIAL -- EOHQ WORK PRODUCT

 

 

Election Officer

 

cc:               Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

 

 

1