ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
IN RE:
SEAN O'BRIEN and ROBERT McALLISTER, Protestors.
06 Elec. App. 052 (KC)
ORDER
This matter is an appeal from the Election Supervisor's decision 2006 ESD 287 issued June 1, 2006.
A hearing was held before me on June 14, 2006. The following persons were heard by way of teleconference: Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq. and Steven Newmark on behalf of the Election Supervisor, James E. Wilson, Esq. on behalf of Local 25, Lou DiGiampaolo, Vice President of Local 25 and Arthur Lazazzero, Trustee and Business Agent of Local 25 the protesters.
Candidates for delegate in Local Union 25 were accused by rival candidates in an Election Rules protest of a) an act of retaliation against one of the protesters for engaging in protected election activity and b) manipulation of access to mailing lists in connection with the election. The protesters subsequently requested that their complaints be allowed to be withdrawn, and the Election Supervisor permitted it, closing the case without making any findings on the merits of the claims.
The accused candidates now appeal, asserting that the claims were false, that the false claims caused the appellants to lose the election, and that an adjudication of the merits is required in order to protect and vindicate their reputations before the rank and file of Local 25.
This appeal is predicated upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and purpose of the IBT's Election Rules.
The filing of election protests, with or without merit, is protected under the Rules.
The Election Supervisor does not, under the Rules, have jurisdiction to hear and resolve defamation claims. Recourse for such injury can be had in formal courts of general civil jurisdiction.
Campaign speech cannot be regulated under the Rules, and falsehoods, hyperbole, innuendo, scurrilous rhetoric and personal attacks must be combated in the campaign engagement, with microphones, pamphlets, dueling press releases and partisan argument, very often rough, sometimes ugly and regrettably even venomous and deceitful.
Candidates for President of the United States as well as candidates for delegate to the IBT Convention alike meet this challenge as a condition of running for office.
The power of the Election Supervisor to allow withdrawal of a protest under the Rules is clear, and there is no basis here to overrule it.
SO ORDERED:
_/s/______________________
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Dated: June 22, 2006