Protest Decisions

         James Anderson, member of Local Union 966 and candidate for IBT East region vice president on the Gegare-Sheard slate, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that a union-financed publication of Local Union 25 impermissibly promoted the candidacy of Sean O’Brien, an opponent of Anderson for IBT East region vice president.

            Election Supervisor representative Deborah Schaaf investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            Local Union 25 publishes The Spokesman quarterly and mails it to the local union membership, among others.[1]  In the Summer 2011 issue mailed July 15, 2011, Local Union 25’s secretary-treasurer Mark Harrington wrote the following in his “Message from Mark Harrington,” viz.

I want to start my report by thanking the membership for electing the leadership of the local unanimously to the International Convention.  This will be my fourth convention.  I look forward to being your voice at this important event.  I also look forward with great pride being able to cast a vote for our own president in his quest on his journey to become an International Union Vice-President.

Harrington wrote his message before the IBT convention, although it was published to the Local Union 25 membership afterwards.  At the convention, Sean O’Brien, Local Union 25’s president and principal officer, was nominated for IBT East region vice president on the Hoffa-Hall 2011 slate. 

            The protest alleged that Harrington’s message endorsed O’Brien’s candidacy and that union resources were used to distribute that endorsement to the local union membership.  We agree.  O’Brien is not identified by name or slate affiliation, but Harrington made clear that he was referring to “our own president” in the election for IBT vice president.  While Harrington may have written the column with the convention nomination vote in mind, the Rules violation is not moot once the convention adjourned.  The column communicated Harrington’s endorsement to the membership in a publication that is an official voice of Local Union 25.  That is union-supported campaigning. 

            Harrington is free individually to endorse and support the candidacy of any member, including O’Brien.  However, Harrington may not use Local Union 25’s official publication or any other union resource to communicate that endorsement to the membership, as was done here.

            Accordingly, we GRANT the protest.

Remedy

When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.

We order Harrington and Local Union 25 to cease and desist from using union resources to support or oppose the candidacy of any member or slate seeking IBT office.

We further order Local Union 25 to post the notice attached to this decision on all worksite bulletin boards under the local union’s jurisdiction.  The notice shall remain posted through September 30, 2011.  The purpose of the notice is to educate the members of the local union of the Rules’ requirements, to notify them that their local union’s secretary-treasurer violated the Rules, and to inform them that their local union cannot and does not support any candidate or slate of candidates for International office.  A widely posted notice will provide a deterrent to further misuse of union-provided resources to campaign.  This notice must be posted within two working days of the date this decision issues.  Within three working days thereafter, Harrington must file an affidavit of compliance with our office attesting that the notice was posted as required.  Once posted, no notice may be defaced or covered up and must be maintained for the posting period.  Notices that are defaced or removed must be replaced promptly.

The notice does not, however, undo the benefit O’Brien (and the Hoffa-Hall 2011 slate) obtained from the union-financed publication and distribution of Harrington’s endorsement.  Such support requires a remedy addressed to the campaign message.  Under the circumstances presented here, we find that the best tool to level the playing field between the campaign of O’Brien and his slate and other candidates for International office is to require Local Union 25 to pay the expenses of one mailing to all IBT members who received the Summer 2011 edition of The Spokesman.  We so order. 

            The remedial mailing we order here is available to protestor Anderson and the candidates for IBT East region vice president on his slate.  It is not available to O’Brien or any candidate for IBT East region vice president on his slate.  Notice of intention to access the remedy ordered here may be given at any time but no later than September 1, 2011 by email to Local Union 25 with copy to our office.  The mailing may be completed at any time but no later than September 30, 2011.  Our order authorizes one mailing only, whether initiated by Anderson, any other candidate for IBT East region vice president on his slate, or the Gegare-Sheard slate.

The expense for which Local Union 25 is liable under this remedy is the cost of #10 envelopes, mailing labels or address-labeling process, paper and printing (including plate-making) for a one-sheet, two-sided flyer printed on white paper in black ink, and first class pre-sort postage.  Local Union 25 is not responsible for artwork or layout expense associated with the mailing.  If the candidate or slate accessing the remedy seeks to use other than white paper and/or ink in addition to or instead of black, the incremental cost, if any, of such enhancements is the responsibility of that candidate or slate and not Local Union 25.  Local Union 25 shall supply the address list used to mail the Summer 2011 issue of The Spokesman (current within 30 days of the date the mailing is to take place) to the mail house designated by the candidate or slate accessing this remedy.  Local Union 25 shall provide such guarantee of payment as the designated mail house shall reasonably require and shall do so in a time that will not delay the mailing.

We do not extend the remedial mailing to candidates for IBT office other than those identified here.  Harrington’s union-financed endorsement of O’Brien endorsed O’Brien only.  He did not endorse any other candidate or slate of candidates, nor did he state that O’Brien is a member of a slate.  Under these circumstances, extending the remedial mailing to candidates for other IBT offices (such as General President, General Secretary-Treasurer and other union-wide offices) who are not competing against O’Brien for IBT East region office is unwarranted.  The elections for those other IBT offices were not affected by Harrington’s endorsement, so no remedy is necessary for those candidates.

            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.