IN RE: DAVID BARKER, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2006 ESD 246
Issued: May 16, 2006
OES Case No. P 06 233-032206-MW
David Barker, a member of Local Union 325, filed a pre election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2005 2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protest alleged that the protestor's Taking Action slate was denied the right to observe the campaign literature carried out by the opposition slate in the delegate and alternate delegate election.
Election Supervisor representatives Joe F. Childers and William C. Broberg investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
On March 17, 2006, Barker exercised his right under Article VII, Section 7 of the Rules and mailed campaign literature to the local union membership, affixing address labels supplied by the local union at the union's offices. During this process, he was observed by Steve Lindquist, local union president. Lindquist was also a candidate in the delegate and alternate delegate election on a slate comprised of local union officers.
Based on Lindquist's observation of the addressing process Barker carried out, Barker concluded that candidates were entitled to observe the labeling of campaign mailings conducted by other candidates. His protest alleged that the Taking Action slate was denied the right to observe the mailing conducted by Lindquist's slate.
The literature mailing policy adopted by the local union for the delegate and alternate delegate election provided in relevant part the following:
3) Absolutely no membership list or labels shall be removed from the union hall. All label applications shall be affixed by the candidates and/or their helpers to the literature at the union hall. This shall be done under the observance of the secretary-treasurer or his designee.
Lindquist told our investigator that he was designated by the local union secretary-treasurer to observe the labeling of campaign literature mailings conducted by all candidates and slates in the delegate and alternate delegate election. Thus, he observed the labeling done by his own slate; he subsequently performed the same function with respect to the labeling done by the Taking Action slate. His function was to preserve the integrity of the local union membership list and to prevent improper copying or other dissemination of the list.
Barker had notice of the local union policy with respect to the distribution of campaign literature. Barker, 2006 243 (May 15, 2006). He did not object to any provision of the policy.
Analysis
Article IX, Section 2 of the Rules permits observers "to observe the processing and distribution of campaign literature for his/her candidate. This shall include the opportunity to observe the duplication of the literature, the stuffing of the envelopes, and the placement of the mailing labels, or the members' names and address, and the postage on the envelopes." The observation right under this provision is limited to observing the processing of literature for the candidate on whose behalf the observer is observing. Accordingly, this provision did not grant Barker the right to observe the processing of literature for the opposition slate.
Article VII, Section 7 permits use of a local union's membership list to conduct campaign mailings. Subsection (b) contemplates two principal means of distributing candidate literature, viz., duplication of the literature and processing the mailing by local union staff at candidate expense, and duplication of the literature by the candidate and labeling and stamping the envelopes by the local union staff. Subsection (c) directs that each candidate "pay, on a reasonable basis, for the actual cost of distribution, including stationery, duplication, time required to do the work and postage for mailing."
However, subsection (g) of the provision permits local unions to adopt alternative procedures that comply with candidates' requests for distribution of literature. Pursuant to this subsection, local unions commonly adopt procedures that permit candidates and their supporters to affix address labels. Such a procedure limits the expense to candidates of campaign mailings by substantially reducing or eliminating the use of local union staff; it also enhances the perceived integrity of the mailing process because candidates and their supporters handle the literature rather than delegating the task to others. While this procedure grants benefits to the candidates and relieves local union staff of work, it does not eliminate the need for some supervision. The local union must protect its substantial interest in preventing copying or other improper dissemination of its membership list; it does so by presenting the list in a form (usually adhesive-backed labels) that causes the list to be consumed in the course of processing the mailing, and it designates someone to observe the affixing of the labels to the mailing and thereby insure that the list is not copied by the candidates.
The procedure adopted by Local Union 325 did not violate the Rules. Lindquist acted as agent for the local union and not as a candidate when he performed his observation function with respect to campaign mailings by both slates. No candidate had a right, whether under Article IX, Section 2, Article VII, Section 7, or the local union policy concerning distribution of candidate literature, to observe the processing of campaign literature by the opposing slate.
While better practice would have been to have the local union secretary-treasurer designate a non-candidate to observe the processing of campaign literature, we find Barker suffered no prejudice by Lindquist's presence during the processing of Barker's literature.
Accordingly, we DENY this 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 Supervisor 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
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, New York 10022
Fax:(212)751 4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1725 K Street, Suite 1400, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2006 ESD 246
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2198
braymond@teamster.org
David J. Hoffa, Esq.
Hoffa 2006
30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 324
Farmington Hills, MI 48834
David@hoffapllc.com
Barbara Harvey
645 Griswold Street
Suite 3060
Detroit, MI 48226
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210
ken@tdu.org
Daniel E. Clifton
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10001
dclifton@lcnlaw.com
Stephen Ostrach
1863 Pioneer Parkway East, #217
Springfield, OR 97477-3907
saostrach@gmail.com
David Barker
W7939 Sweet Road
Darien, WI 53114
Matthew Fitch
Merriman River Associates
P.O. Box 185332
Hamden, CT 06518
matt@merrimanriver.com
Richard Thompson, Secretary-Treasurer
IBT Local Union 325
5533 Eleventh Street
Rockford, IL 61109
Steve Lindquist, President
IBT Local Union 325
5533 Eleventh Street
Rockford, IL 61109
William Broberg
1108 Fincastle Road
Lexington, KY 40502
wcbroberg@aol.com
Joe F. Childers
201 West Short Street, Suite 310
Lexington, KY 40507
childerslaw@yahoo.com
Jeffrey Ellison
510 Highland Avenue, #325
Milford, MI 48381
EllisonEsq@aol.com