Protest Decisions

IN RE: GARY R. RUSSELL,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 393
Issued: June 23, 2001
OEA Case No. PR061911MW

Gary Russell, a member of Local 705 and an elected delegate to the IBT convention, 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"). Russell alleges that notwithstanding the collective decision of the Local 705 delegates to the IBT Convention to have Joe Bakes and Rich Carlucci act as "whips" for the delegation, Local 705 secretary-treasurer Gerald Zero advised International Vice President John Murphy that another delegate, Michael Colgan, would act as the whip for the Local 705 delegation. Russell alleges that Zero's designation was contrary to the vote of the delegates and therefore violates the Rules.

Election Administrator representative Dennis M. Sarsany investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

On June 10, 2001, Local 705's delegates met; a small number of delegates, including Zero, did not attend. At the meeting, the delegates voted for Bakes and Carlucci to act as whips for the IBT convention. Although Zero did not attend the meeting, he received a copy of the minutes. Those minutes state that the majority of the delegates had decided not to align with either of the two slates of International officer candidates.

Zero denies discussing the issue of whips with Murphy, and Murphy told our investigator that he has never spoken with Zero about the topic; nevertheless, Zero has spoken with another IBT Vice President, Pat Flynn, about the IBT convention. Flynn contacted Zero as a member of the Hoffa slate, not as an IBT officer. Zero stated that Flynn called to solicit the name of a "whip" to represent Hoffa slate supporters among members of the Local 705 delegation. Zero stated that he knew that James Colgan supported the Hoffa Slate and suggested that he would be an appropriate person to act as whip for the slate.

According to Zero's understanding, the term "whip" refers to a person designated by a campaign to act as a conduit for communication between the campaign and its supporters on the floor. A whip facilitates floor voting on issues and other matters at the convention.

Zero says that because a majority of the Local 705 delegates that attended the June 10, 2001 meeting had decided not to align with either of the two slates of candidates, he assumed that the two individuals those delegates had elected as whips were, likewise, not aligned with either campaign. Therefore, when he was asked by a representative of the Hoffa slate for a recommendation, he named a person (Colgan) he knew to be a supporter of that slate. When asked what he would have done if approached by the Leedham slate, Zero stated that he would have provided that slate with a name of an elected delegate he knew supported it. In either case, Zero understands that neither he nor the Local 705 delegation has the power to name a slate's whip. He describes his action as advisory only and states that he had no authority to take any action to override the will of the local's delegation. Finally, he stated that the action of the delegates at the June 10, 2001 meeting is activity neither governed by the IBT Constitution nor protected by the Rules.

Zero is correct that a whip is often selected by a candidate or slate to marshal its supporters, so it is understandable that he would recommend a supporter of the Hoffa slate to serve as a whip for the slate at the convention. That is not inconsistent with the decision of a number of Local 705 delegates to select whips to represent them in the "neutral" position they had chosen. Each action stands.

Finally, even if there was any basis for the claim that the June 10, 2001 vote of the delegation is binding on the campaigns, this aspect of the process is not governed by the Rules. We, therefore, 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 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 393

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