February 7, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT & FACSIMILE
Joseph B. Rockstroh
February 7, 1996
Page 1
Joseph B. Rockstroh
6154 Old Washington Road
Elkridge, MD 21227
Fax: (301) 596-1410/
(410) 796-7836
Bob Reynolds, Vice President
Teamsters Local Union 355
1030 S. Dukeland Street
Baltimore, MD 21223
Fax: (410) 566-5703
David White, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 355
1030 S. Dukeland Street
Baltimore, MD 21223
Fax: (410) 566-5703
Denis Taylor, President
Teamsters Local Union 355
1030 S. Dukeland Street
Baltimore, MD 21223
Fax: (410) 566-5703
Joseph B. Rockstroh
February 7, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. E-074-LU355-EOH
Gentlemen:
In response to a pre-nomination request for eligibility verification from Local
Union 355 Secretary-Treasurer David White and Vice-President Robert Reynolds, the Election Officer found them eligible to run for delegate from the local union to the International convention. Joseph B. Rockstroh, a member of Local Union 355, filed a protest by facsimile received in the Election Office on January 29, 1996 concerning the eligibility of Mr. White and Mr. Reynolds, alleging that the two local union officers are ineligible because they were suspended from their respective offices for one month by Joint Council 62.
Joseph B. Rockstroh
February 7, 1996
Page 1
Local Union 355 held its nomination meeting on January 7, 1996. The protester states that he became aware of the suspensions of Mr. White and Mr. Reynolds when reading the January/February 1996 issue of Teamster magazine. This issue was mailed to the IBT membership on January 8, 1996 with home delivery date planned for January 16, 1996.
Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) requires that all pre-election protests be filed
“within two (2) working days of the day the protester becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protest shall be waived.” Pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b)(1), this provision includes protests "regarding eligibility of candidates, nominators and persons seconding nominations."
The requirement to promptly file protests is an important part of the election process. The short time limits were designed to ensure that alleged violations of the Rules would be quickly brought to the attention of the Election Officer in order to afford the greatest opportunity for applying an effective remedy in the event a violation is found. In eligibility protests, the short time frame is particularly significant due to tight scheduling by the Election Office for printing and mailing ballots.
In Ruscigno, et al., P-144-LU337-MGN (October 4, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 25 (KC) (October 18, 1995), a protest was filed 14 days after the publication at issue, a publication of Local Union 337, was mailed to the local union’s membership. Because the protesters were not members of Local Union 337, the Election Officer stated that “(a) reasonable delay between the date the publication was first mailed and the date when the protesters could reasonably be expected to have seen it would naturally exist.” However, the Election Officer found that a period of 14 days “exceeds the limit of this reasonable delay.”
Here, the publication giving rise to the protest was mailed directly to the protester. Applying the standard articulated in Ruscigno to the circumstances here, the Election Officer finds that the 21-day period between the January 8, 1996 mailing of the January/ February 1996 Teamster and the filing of the protest on January 29, 1996 exceeds the “reasonable delay” envisioned by the Rules. The Election Officer notes that the protests in Case Nos. P-310-IBT-SCE and P-316-IBT-SCE, both of which concerned material in the January /February 1996 Teamster were filed, respectively, on January 12, 1996 and January 16, 1996. Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that the protest is untimely under Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules.
For the reasons set forth above, 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:
Joseph B. Rockstroh
February 7, 1996
Page 1
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham and Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Peter V. Marks, Regional Coordinator