Protest Decisions

             Michael-David Sasson, member of Local Union 2010, 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 Local Union 2010 failed promptly to transmit a campaign email to its email list, as required by the Rules.

            Election Supervisor representative Chris Mrak investigated this protest. 

Findings of Fact and Analysis

Article VII, Section 7(d) requires the union to “honor reasonable requests by candidates for distribution of literature through electronic mail.”  As we documented in Sasson, 2011 ESD 206 (April 12, 2011), Local Union 2010 maintains a comprehensive email list of its membership that is well-suited for distributing campaign messages from candidates.  As permitted by our Advisory,[1] Local Union 2010 adopted a procedure by which it performs the email distribution of campaign messages itself rather than contracting the task to a vendor.  The procedure provided the following:

Local 2010 has made arrangements to handle internally all requests for emailing delegate campaign literature to members at the candidates’ expense.  Candidates seeking to email campaign literature to members should provide at least 5 days written notice to Anytra Henderson, c/o Barry Alexander at Local 2010 IT Support Staff … and include the following information:

1.      The name of the candidate or campaign requesting the email broadcast;

2.      The date on which the email broadcast is to be sent;

3.      Whether the email is to be broadcast to all members or some portion thereof.

Each piece of campaign literature must be submitted in final form and as an attachment to an email sent to the above-referenced email address.  Each piece of distributed email shall include the statement: ‘This email is distributed by [name of campaign], which is solely responsible for its content.  The message has not been reviewed or endorsed by the IBT or Local 2010.’

As found in Sasson, supra, the local union demonstrated during the delegate election period that it did not require five days to process candidate requests for email distribution of campaign messages, instead distributing the messages generally within one day of the request.

            In the present matter, protestor Sasson transmitted a request for email distribution to the local union IT support staff and other personnel in accordance with the established procedure on August 17.  He also submitted the fee of $37.50 that same date.  To demonstrate that the requested email distribution was made on behalf of a candidate, as the Rules provision required, Carl Biers, the campaign manager for the Sandy Pope campaign, emailed the same addressees on August 17 that the message was authorized by that candidate. 

The local union did not distribute the email campaign message until September 1, some 15 days after receipt.  This delayed distribution violated the local union’s published procedure that indicated that distribution would occur within five days of request, and it fell far short of the one-day turnaround the local union achieved during the delegate election period.

            Investigation showed that Anytra Henderson, the local union’s principal officer, was solely responsible for the delay in the distribution.  First, she refused to authorize processing of Sasson’s request until she spoke with the local union’s attorney.  While Henderson is free to obtain legal advice as she deems necessary, such consultation cannot delay the processing of an email distribution request beyond the time frame the union itself set in its own procedure.

Second, Henderson refused to authorize the processing of the request until Sasson supplied proof that the campaign message was authorized by a candidate.  However, the authorization Henderson sought had been supplied the same date the request was made and therefore could not justify her failure to authorize distribution of the email campaign message within the time frame set in the union’s own procedure.

Third, Henderson refused to authorize the processing of the request until the content of the message was reviewed and approved by Sandria Frost.  Frost previously stood as a candidate for delegate in opposition to the slate that supported the Pope campaign.  Frost had no official role with respect to the email distribution of campaign messages.  Moreover, as the Advisory makes clear, a local union may not censor or review the content of a campaign message and may not withhold distribution on that basis.  Frost confirmed to our investigator that she had no responsibility with respect to the email distribution procedure, stating further that Henderson had not communicated to her that she was to assume such a role.  Accordingly, Henderson impermissibly delayed authorizing Sasson’s request for a spurious reason.

Fourth, Henderson delayed authorizing the processing of the request, claiming that she was on vacation and could take no action until she returned from that vacation.

Fifth, Henderson delayed authorizing the processing of the request, asserting that she is a “volunteer.”  With this statement, Henderson apparently suggests that volunteers cannot be required to fulfill the obligations that officials who are paid for their services are required to perform.  We reject this suggestion.  All that was required of Henderson was to authorize the distribution of the email campaign message in accordance with an email policy the union had established months earlier.  The protestor had supplied all the material and information required to have an email distribution processed[2] on August 17, the date he first made the request.  Under the circumstances presented here, had Henderson acted with reasonable diligence she could have authorized the distribution on August 17, or the next day.  The expectation of a one or two-day turnaround to process an email request is based on Local Union 2010’s own performance of this task in the delegate election.  Henderson unreasonably delayed distribution of the message, and such conduct is not acceptable.

Distribution of campaign messages through local union processes serves the important function of providing the membership with information about the pending election, the candidates competing in it, and their positions on issues important to the membership.  Given our Article I obligation to insure “fair, honest, open and informed elections,” we require that local unions promptly honor reasonable requests for distribution of campaign material.

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 Henderson, no later than the next working day after the local union’s receipt of a request for email distribution of a campaign message, to authorize the responsible local union official, employee or volunteer to distribute the message.  The requests for email distribution of campaign messages subject to this order are those where the text and the fee has been submitted and proof has been received that the message is authorized by a candidate.  We further order Henderson to insure that any campaign email message she authorizes for distribution is actually distributed no later than the same day she authorizes it.  Failure of Henderson to comply with this order may subject her to a daily fine for each day of her failure.

            We order Local Union 2010 to email the notice attached to this decision to all members for whom it has email addresses within one day of the date this decision is issued.  We direct the local union to embed the notice in the body of the email rather than transmit it as an attachment.  We further direct that the email subject line read “A message from the IBT Election Supervisor.”

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.