Protest Decisions

IN RE: EARL ELIAS,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 248
Issued: March 20, 2001
OEA Case No. PR021613WE

Earl Elias, a member of Local 223 and independent delegate candidate, 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"). He alleges officials of the local improperly used shop stewards to campaign for their election as delegates.

Election Administrator representative Michael Four investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

After Local 223's January 10, 2001 nomination meeting, secretary-treasurer Clayton Banry held a candidates' meeting at which he gave Elias and others the local's written procedures for campaign mailings. The handout explained that the local would provide mailing labels and mail house services on request and at candidate expense. Banry also told candidates they could request portions of the mailing list instead of the full list.

Because of special coding on TITAN records, the local was able to generate a mailing list limited to stewards. On February 5, local president Leslie Sloy, lead delegate candidate on the Team 223 slate, requested mailing labels for the stewards in order to send them materials promoting Sloy's slate. The mailing that followed included a transmittal letter and several copies of a flyer. The letter's first paragraph stated: "We would really appreciate you passing out as well as posting this letter along with the enclosed flyer for our members to read before casting their vote for the delegates election." It then identified several reasons the slate's members were best qualified for delegate.

The slate did not use union stationery in its mailing. Sloy stuffed and labeled the envelopes on personal time and at the slate's expense and sent the mailing to selected stewards.

Unlike Sloy, Elias did not request labels either for a targeted or general mailing. He offers no support for his claim that such a request would have been denied.

Article VII, Section 7 of the Rules permits each candidate "a reasonable opportunity, equal to that of any other candidate, to have his/her literature distributed by the Union, at the candidate's expense." Further, the union must "honor requests for distribution of literature to only a portion or segment of the membership, as determined by the candidate," unless doing so is impractical.

All candidates - Elias included - were told of their right to request labels, whether for a full or targeted mailing. We therefore reject Elias' claim that Sloy's slate was given an advantage in its mailing that was withheld from other candidates, and we DENY that aspect of the protest.

Elias also claims that Sloy's slate improperly employed the local's network of stewards to distribute its flyers. Stewards are appointed by and serve at the secretary-treasurer's discretion. Elias argues that these facts about the stewards' tenure caused them to view the letter they received as an official instruction from the local union rather than a request from a campaign.

We DENY Elias' contention. The Rules do not prohibit candidates from soliciting the support of appointed stewards, at least where no evidence of coercion is presented. Team 223 obtained the mailing labels for stewards permissibly and sent unmistakably campaign-related material to them. The candidates did not identify themselves as local officers and nothing about the mailing suggested it was an official directive from the local union. Further, there is no evidence that stewards were unduly influenced to distribute and post the material. At bottom, Elias' claim is that candidates who also are local union officials violate the Rules merely by requesting stewards' support. We reject this assertion and find that the slate's members did not use their official positions to gain stewards' help in posting literature.

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 15^th Street, N.W., 10^th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005 (fax: 202-454-1501), all within the time 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 248

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY UPS NEXT DAY AIR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):