February 15, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Charles H. Stansburge
12838 Cunninghill Cove Road
Baltimore, MD 21220
Aaron Sawyer
4500 Howe Avenue
Suitland, MD 20746
Re: Election Office Case No. E-099-LU103-EOH
Gentlemen:
Aaron Sawyer was nominated was to run for delegate to the International convention at Local Union 103's nominations meeting on January 25, 1996. Mr. Sawyer’s candidacy was unopposed. By letter received by the Election Officer on February 13, 1996,
Charles Stansburge, a member of Local Union 570 and former trustee of Local Union 103, protests Mr. Sawyer’s eligibility to run for delegate. Mr. Stansburge alleges that Mr. Sawyer has not been a member of Local Union 103 in good standing for 24 consecutive months prior to his nomination as required by the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules").
Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules requires preelection protests, including those "regarding eligibility of candidates," to be filed "within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested." As stated above, Mr. Stansburge's protest was received by the Election Officer on
February 13, 1996, 13 working days after the local union's nominations meeting.
Charles Stansburge
February 15, 1996
Page 1
The protester contends that he did not become aware of Mr. Sawyer’s nomination and subsequent election until February 12, 1996. The Election Officer sees no reason to doubt Mr. Stansburge’s assertion. Regardless of when Mr Stansburge actually learned of the nomination, however, a protest filed so long after the meeting giving rise to the protest is untimely.
The Rules state that the time limit in which one may file a protest begins to run when a protester knew or should reasonably have known of the event giving rise to the protest. It is perhaps reasonable to assume that a member of one local union would not, under normal circumstances, be apprised of nominations which occur in another local union. Nor would it be unreasonable to assume that the first news of such a nomination received by an outsider might be by word-of-mouth several days after the event has occurred. To allow such protests as timely, however, undermines the mission of the Rules and the purpose of the timeliness requirements in them.
The Rules contemplate speedy resolution of pre-election and eligibility protests so that the election process will not be hindered. The Rules balance the need to provide members with dispute resolution and enforcement procedures and with the need to structure the election process so that it may proceed smoothly and efficiently. For this reason, individuals who wish to challenge the eligibility of nominated candidates may do so, but only within a narrowly defined time limit. This time limit insures that disputes have a chance to be investigated and resolved before their existence interferes with the printing or distribution of the ballot or the conduct of the election. To allow protests filed as late as the present one simply because the protester had no actual knowledge of the events which occurred at the nomination meeting would jeopardize this balance constructed by the Rules. In such an instance, any local union member could avoid the protest time restrictions by getting a member of another local union to file a protest that would otherwise be untimely. Such a result would have the potential of paralyzing the election process.
In addition, any member of the IBT can easily obtain information regarding nominations conducted in another local union. The nominations meetings are not held in secret, and the names of candidates nominated must be publicly posted in accordance with the Rules. Consequently, a member concerned about the results of a nominations meeting in another local union can reasonably be expected to exert the minimal effort required to obtain necessary information.
Accordingly, it is the determination of the Election Officer that the present protest is untimely. The protest is, as a result, 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:
Charles Stansburge
February 15, 1996
Page 1
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & 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