November 24, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE AND UPS OVERNIGHT
Joseph Padellaro
November, 24, 1998
Page 1
Joseph Padellaro
28 Basin Road
Newburyport, MA 01950
Eileen Sullivan, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 851
360A W. Merrick Road
2nd Floor
Valley Stream, NY 11580
George O. Suggs, Esq.
Wilburn & Suggs
1015 Locust
Suite 818
St. Louis, MO 63101
John Metz Slate
2700 Macklind Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63139
Joseph Padellaro
November, 24, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-422-EO-EOH
Gentlemen:
Joseph Padellaro
November, 24, 1998
Page 1
Joseph Padellaro, a candidate for International vice-president on the John Metz Slate, 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 Election Officer Michael G. Cherkasky. The protester objects to the conduct of the rerun election because he has received information that indicates that five ballots were mailed to members of Local Union 851 at the local union’s address. The protester contends that this “directly impacts the secret ballot election process and jeopardizes the candidacy of any Teamster running for office . . ..”
The protest was investigated by Deputy Election Officer Benetta M. Mansfield.
For several reasons, many IBT members have addresses listed in the TITAN system which are either local union addresses or employer addresses. In some cases, this is due to security concerns (for members who are police or probation officers, for example). In other cases, local unions list the office address because members are supposed to reside in a certain jurisdiction. However, in order to cast a ballot in the International Officer Rerun Election, ballots should be received by members at their home address.
In the 1991 International officer election, and in the initial 1996 International officer election, the Election Officer mailed ballots to all active members regardless of whether the address listed in the TITAN system was that of a local union or an employer. To the extent possible, the Election Officer identified such members, and if their ballots were received, they were challenged by the Election Officer.
Prior to mailing the ballots for the International Officer Rerun Election, Election Officer Cherkasky determined that where he could identify five or more members at a local union address or an employer address, those ballots would be pulled or extracted at the United States and Canadian mail houses and sent to the boiler room to get better addresses. In order to accomplish this, the Election Officer had its data consultant do a match at the zip code level for local union and employer addresses. Thereafter, Election Office staff conducted a visual comparison of the addresses contained in the record against addresses on file for local unions and employers. If there was a match for five or more members, the ballots were extracted. In some cases, the Election Officer was able to get a better address and mail the ballot. In other cases, the Election Officer had to wait for the member to contact the boiler room for receipt of the ballot. Approximately 1,200 such ballot packages were handled in this fashion.
Identifying member addresses that match the address of a local union or an employer is at times quite difficult and the system is not perfect. For example, many local unions have two addresses – a street address and a post office box. Election Office staff however made its best effort to identify these ballots. In many cases where there were employer addresses, the Election Officer contacted the employer, or in the case of security concerns, posted an additional notice at the work site advising members to call the boiler room to receive a ballot.
Joseph Padellaro
November, 24, 1998
Page 1
Obviously, such a system is not perfect and unfortunately, many local unions, for whatever reason, continue to list member addresses as the local union address in the TITAN system. The Election Office estimates there may be 10,000 such local union or employer listings in the TITAN system. If five members of Local Union 851 received ballots at the local union, this means that the Election Officer did not identify this as a local union address and therefore did not extract these ballots. Those ballots sent to the Local Union 851 address, if returned, will be challenged by the Election Officer.
The Election Officer notes that despite massive efforts to clean-up the membership list, many local unions still listed members at the local union address. Election Officer Cherkasky made extraordinary efforts to extract such ballots and find better addresses so that these members’ ballots would not be challenged. The Election Officer implemented greater precautions by extracting the ballots than those took in the 1991 and 1996 elections to insure that ballots are properly received by all “ballot-qualified members.” See Rules, Article V, Section 5.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
Joseph Padellaro
November, 24, 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
Randy Barber, CEO