Protest Decisions

IN RE: LAURA WANLESS,                        )           Protest Decision 2011 ESD 278

                                                                        )           Issued: June 15, 2011

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-268-050611-MW               

____________________________________)

            Laura Wanless, member and president of GCC 32M, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2 of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).   The protest alleged that several other GCC local unions in the GCC central region failed to post Wanless’ campaign literature on all union bulletin boards, as she requested.

            Election Supervisor representative Joe Childers investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact

            Pursuant to the merger agreement between the IBT and the Graphic Communications International Union, GCC local unions consisting of fewer than 125 members were consolidated by region for election of convention delegates.  Protestor Wanless’ union, GCC 32M, was combined with fourteen other GCC unions situated in eight Midwest and Great Plains states, and the consolidated group was entitled to elect one delegate and one alternate delegate to the IBT convention.  Wanless and Pete Conlogue were nominated for delegate; John Sforza was nominated for alternate delegate[1].  Ballots were mailed April 7 and counted April 28, 2011.

            On April 5, Frank Golden sent a memo bearing Wanless’ signature by regular mail to the principal officers of the other local unions in the consolidated GCC central region, requesting that they post on all worksite bulletin boards, all union hall bulletin boards, and at all union membership meetings a Wanless campaign flyer enclosed with the memo.  Golden is a business representative for GCC District 4 who was acting as Wanless’ campaign manager in his free time after working hours.  The single-page flyer announced Wanless’ delegate candidacy and listed her experience and accomplishments.  The memo also requested that the principal officers provide “posting verification” to her by return mail within ten days.

            On 988 ballots mailed in the delegate election, the tally of ballots showed the following:

            Wanless’ protest, filed May 6, alleged that “the outcome of the election was directly affected by the miss handling[2] of our campaign materials by a majority of the Local Unions involved with said election.  We had requested a posting verification from all Local Unions and have received very few.” 

            Wanless told our investigator that she received two verifications from local unions that her campaign material had been posted as requested.

Analysis

            Under the Rules, candidates may have their campaign materials distributed by the local union under limited conditions.  Thus, under Article VII, Section 7(a) through (g), a candidate may request a local union to mail his/her literature to all or a designated portion of the local union’s members at candidate expense.  Further, under Article VII, Section 7(a)(4), a candidate may request a local union to email campaign literature to the local union’s email list, if it has one.  Finally, a candidate may request that the local union place his/her literature on a candidate literature table or bulletin board established at the local union hall or offices.  The Rules require the local union to comply with such requests in a timely fashion.

            The Rules provide no mechanism by which a candidate can require a local union to place the candidate’s literature on worksite bulletin boards.  This is the case for two reasons: first, union bulletin boards at worksites typically are reserved exclusively for official union notices and postings and cannot be used to campaign; second, the distribution of the campaign literature from the local union offices to the stewards responsible for posting them would necessarily involve uncompensated use of union resources to support a candidate under circumstances where no Rules provision expressly authorizes it.  Accordingly, Wanless had no right under the Rules to insist that local unions in the GCC central region post her campaign flyer on worksite bulletin boards under their jurisdiction.

            Further, the Rules prohibit campaigning at union meetings unless all candidates are given advance written notice of the opportunity to campaign.  Accordingly, Wanless’ request that her flyer be posted at membership meetings, if carried out, might violate the Rules.                                                                

            Finally, although filed after the tally of ballots, Wanless’ protest alleged a violation of the Rules that occurred pre-election.  Under Article XIII, Section 2(b), she was required to file her pre-election protest within two working days of when she became aware or reasonably should have become aware that local unions had not complied with her request.  As she did not do so, her protest is untimely.

            For these reasons, 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, NY  10022

Fax: (212) 751-4864

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L, Washington, D.C.  20006, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.