IN RE: DAVID ZEEK,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 160
Issued: February 13, 2001
OEA Case No. PR013113ME
David Zeek, a Local 100 member and a delegate candidate on the Proud Working Teamsters slate, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). Zeek alleges that candidates on the Members Choice slate, including Local 100 president Ken Barnes, used union funds improperly by employing the law firm of Logothetis, Pence and Doll to advance the Members Choice campaign in the local union's delegate election.
Election Administrator representative Lisa Sonia Taylor investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
On January 22, 2001, we found Tom Peck, a delegate candidate on the Proud Working Teamsters slate, ineligible to run for delegate. Butts, et al., 2001 EAD 86 (January 22, 2001),
aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 01 EAM 18 (January 30, 2001). Zeek, another Proud Working Teamsters delegate candidate, appealed the decision.
Based on information given to the investigator after the filing of the appeal, we recommended in a hearing before the Election Appeals Master on January 29, 2001 that our decision regarding Peck's eligibility be reversed. On January 30, 2001, the Election Appeals Master reversed our decision and found Peck eligible. 01 EAM 18.
Also on January 30, 2001, we received a letter from Sorrel Logothetis, an attorney from the law firm of Logothetis, Pence and Doll (the "firm"). The firm has represented Local 100 on various matters over the past thirty years. The firm did not participate in the protest regarding Peck's eligibility or the appeal hearing.
Barnes, in his capacity as Local 100's president, raised two concerns regarding the above with Logothetis, who contacted our office: (1) The parties received no advance notice that we would recommend reversing our own decision; and (2) Local 100 needed clarification regarding the eligibility rules, which mirror the eligibility rules to be used in upcoming local union elections. Logothetis questioned the change in our position regarding Peck's eligibility and the "fairness of the procedures leading up to the Election Administrator's revised analysis under the facts of the case." On January 31, 2001, we answered Logothetis.
On February 2, 2001, Julie Ford, an attorney at the firm, requested further explanation. We responded on February 7, 2001, providing Ford with additional details underlying our recommendation that the Election Appeals Master reverse our decision.
Zeek opposes Barnes in the delegate election. He claims that Barnes is using the firm's services to further his political agenda and, in doing so, relies on correspondence between the firm and the Election Administrator.
Analysis
The Rules prohibit the use of union funds to further an individual's or slate's candidacy. Article XI, Section 1(b)(6). Union funds can, however, be used to advance the independent, institutional interests of the local. See Jenne, 2000 EAD 64 (December 4, 2000); McGinnis, 91 EAM 150 (May 16, 1991); Furst, P711 (July 15, 1991), aff'd in relevant part, 91 EAM 172 (July 29, 1991).
The firm played no role in resolving Peck's eligibility protest and appeal. Its letters, which we received after the appeal hearing, concern Local 100's independent, institutional interest in our appeal procedures and the interpretation of eligibility rules. As was held in McGinnis, such inquiries are legitimate since local unions have "an institutional interest in assuring the integrity of the election process." We accordingly DENY the protest.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Administrator in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
Suite 1000
885 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Fax: 212-751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 727 15th Street NW, Tenth Floor, Washington, DC 20005, all within the time period prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Election Administrator
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2001 EAD 160
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA UPS NEXT DAY AIR:
Patrick Szymanski
IBT General Counsel
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
J. Douglas Korney
Korney & Heldt
30700 Telegraph Road
Suite 1551
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Barbara Harvey
Penobscot Building
Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
Suite 800
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach
110 Mayfair
Eugene, OR 97404
IBT Local 100
2100 Oak Road
Cincinnati, OH 45241
David Zeek
414 North "D" Road
Hamilton, OH 45013
Sorrell Logothetis
Logothetis, Pence & Doll
111 West First St.
Dayton, OH 45402
William B. Kane
242 Old Haymaker Road
Monroeville, PA 15146