July 16, 1996
VIA FACSIMILE
Neil Bodine, et al.
July 16, 1996
Page 1
Neil Bodine
Travelodge
Mt. Laurel, NJ
Fax (609) 235-3909
Tom Baldwin
Mt. Laurel Ramada
Mt. Laurel, NJ
Fax (609) 273-8562
Garnet Zimmerman
Mt. Laurel Ramada
Mt. Laurel, NJ
Fax (609) 273-8562
Neil Bodine, et al.
July 16, 1996
Page 1
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Neil Bodine, et al.
July 16, 1996
Page 1
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Pennsylvania Convention Center
Room 110
Philadelphia, PA
John Sullivan, Associate General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Pennsylvania Convention Center
Room 110
Philadelphia, PA
Neil Bodine, et al.
July 16, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. CONV-17-IBT
CONV-18-IBT
CONV-19-IBT
Gentlemen:
Late on the evening of July 15, 1996, Convention protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). In CONV-17-IBT, Local Unions 94, 386, 431, 616, 246 and 857 and Joint Council 38 allege that General President Ron Carey failed to call for a division of the house over whether the Constitution Committee’s recommendation to amend Article IV, Sections 1(a) and 1(b) of the IBT Constitution should be adopted, in violation of the requirements of the Constitution. In CONV-18-IBT, Tom Baldwin, president of Local
Neil Bodine, et al.
July 16, 1996
Page 1
Union 880, makes a similar allegation, contending that Mr. Carey ignored two voice votes that “clearly” indicated the will of the majority of delegates to reject the Committee report and also ignored a call for a division of the house even though more than 200 delegates called for the division.
In CONV-19-IBT, Garnet Zimmerman, president of Local Union 31, makes a number of allegations. Like Mr. Baldwin, he alleges that Mr. Carey wrongly judged the outcome of the two voice votes concerning the Committee report as being inconclusive or for adoption. Additionally, he alleges that Mr. Carey’s failure to accept a call for a division of the house over the issue was improper because more than 200 delegates supported the call for division. He also protests that he has not been granted adequate access to microphones for the purpose of debate and contends that the current system of microphone access is not conducive to comprehensive debate. He alleges that he suffered unfairly because he was not aware that the report which was to be considered for adoption added another Canadian vice president. He claims he is at a disadvantage because his slate is now short one candidate. Lastly, he protests that he was not allowed to bring literature that expressed opposition to adoption of the report on to the floor of the Convention. He contends that the exclusion was unfair because the administration had two speakers in favor of adoption make presentations from the podium and showed a videotape in favor of adoption.
These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator William A. Wertheimer.
Under the Consent Decree, the Election Officer has exclusive jurisdiction over the IBT’s election to select delegates and alternate delegates to the Teamsters 25th International Convention and to select International officers from among candidates nominated at that Convention. In exercising her jurisdiction, the Election Officer has sole authority over the processes for nominating International candidates from the Convention floor and for voting on those nominations. The Election Officer exercises this authority by conducting the floor nominations, as well as the secret ballot nominations vote at the Convention. She does not, however, preside over any other business at the Convention.
These consolidated protests raise issues with respect to parliamentary procedures used by Mr. Carey as Convention chair to consider the report of the Constitution Committee. The Election Officer finds that neither the subject matter of this report nor the procedures by which it was considered were within her jurisdiction.
With respect to subject matter, part of the report dealt with the creation of a new position on the General Executive Board entitled, “President of Teamsters Canada/Vice President.” Mr. Bodine argues that an amendment that alters the number of International officer positions falls within the jurisdiction of the Election Officer because her mandate extends to the supervision of “all phases” of the election of such officers. He contends that this explicit grant of authority carries with it an implicit grant of authority over the manner and method in which new International officer positions are created.
Neil Bodine, et al.
July 16, 1996
Page 1
This argument lacks merit. The Election Officer’s jurisdiction extends to the supervision of the election of the number of International officers duly determined through the IBT constitutional amendment process. Her mandate does not apply to the number of International officer positions assigned by the IBT Constitution so long as occupants of such positions are selected through the democratic process required by the Consent Decree and protected by the Rules. In prior decisions, the Election Officer has consistently declined to extend her jurisdiction under the Consent Decree to substantive issues concerning how the union should be organized and run. Thus, the Election Officer has denied protests filed over internal union actions which were within the purview of the general president under the IBT Constitution and did not implicate the Rules. See, e.g., Faulkner, P-293-IBT-CLE (March 25, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 159 (KC) (April 4, 1996); Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI
(September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995); Leal, P-051-
IBT-CSF (October 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 30 (KC) (October 30, 1995).
With respect to the parliamentary processes by which the report was considered, including issues concerning the acceptance of the voice vote, the failure to grant a division of the house, the refusal to allow literature regarding the Amendment on to the Convention floor, and issues of microphone access, these protests in effect request the Election Officer to sit as Convention parliamentarian. Without a clear connection to the electoral processes under her jurisdiction, however, the Election Officer declines to review Convention parliamentary procedures.
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 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
Neil Bodine, et al.
July 16, 1996
Page 1
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, Pennsylvania Convention Center, Room 204, Facsimile (202) 418-2426. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
William A. Wertheimer, Regional Coordinator