OFFICE OF THE ELECTION OFFICER
for the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
400 N. Capitol Street NW, Suite 855
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 624-3500
(800) 565-VOTE
Facsimile (202) 624-3525
Barbara Zack Quindel Milwaukee Office:
Election Officer Perry, Lerner & Quindel, S.C.
823 N. Cass Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
(414) 272-7400
June 30, 1995
John F. Murphy, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
John F. Murphy, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
John F. Murphy, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 122 650 Beacon St. Boston, MA 02215
Gary L. Gregory 10815 Bakeway Drive Indianapolis, IN 46231
John L. Neal, President Teamsters Local Union 135 1233 Shelby St. Indianapolis, IN 46203
Terence F. Majka, Recording Secretary New York State Teamsters Joint Council 18 132 Genesee St. Auburn, NY 13021
Paul E. Bush, President Teamsters Local Union 506 132 Genesee St. Auburn, NY 13201
Robert G. DeRusha, Trustee 650 Beacon St., Room 501 Boston, MA 02215
Jack Powers, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 1150 150 Garfield Avenue Stratford, CN XXX-XX-XXXX
|
| Jack Powers, President Joint Council 64 of Connecticut, IBT P.O. Box 1710 200 Wallace St. New Haven, CN 06507
Max Aud, President Teamsters Local Union 347 509 W. Main St. West Frankfurt, IL 62896
Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq. Baptiste & Wilder 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036
Ron Carey, General President International Brotherhood of Teamsters 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
Aaron Belk, Vice-President International Brotherhood of Teamsters 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
John Sullivan, Esq. Associate General Counsel International Brotherhood of Teamsters 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C 20001
International Brotherhood of Teamsters 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. |
|
|
|
John F. Murphy, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos.:
P-002-IBT-SCE
P-003-IBT-SCE
P-004-IBT-SCE
P-005-IBT-SCE
P-006-IBT-SCE
P-007-IBT-SCE
P-008-IBT-SCE
P-020-IBT-SCE
Gentlemen:
Related pre-election protests[1] have been filed with the Election Officer pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(a), of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). Because these protests raised similar legal and factual claims, they were consolidated by the Election Officer. The following determination addresses the claims raised in these protests.
On January 9, 1995, John F. Murphy, Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 122 filed a protest (P-002) generally objecting to the alleged planned mergers by the International Union of Local Unions with 500 or less members. Murphy contends these mergers violate the Rules because they "would eliminate that group of union members’ right to select their own representatives and eradicate the protection afforded under the ‘one man one vote’ principle which serves as the basis of representative democracy."
John F. Murphy, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
In a letter dated January 20, 1995, the Recording Secretary of Joint Council 18, Terence J. Majka, filed a similar protest objecting to the "secret" forced mergers of Local Unions. (P-003). Majka contends that "[w]ith this action the incumbents eliminate 15%-20% of the Local Unions."
In a letter dated January 20, 1995, Paul E. Bush, President of Local Union 506 also filed a protest objecting to forced mergers. (P-004). Bush alleges that the mergers are taking place because of "well known criticism of this administration."
On the same date, International Trustee Robert De Rusha filed a general protest against the merger of Local Unions. (P-005). International Trustee De Rusha contends the mergers are "designed to eliminate delegates from local unions that are very vocal in their criticism of Carey and his policies . . ." and are "designed to change in Carey’s favor the political composition of the 1996 Convention Delegates." Finally, De Rusha contends that if the International Union is allowed to merge these Local Unions, the delegate election process and the convention will be "irreparably harmed."
Two more protests dated January 20, 1995 were received from Jack Powers, first in his capacity as Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 1150 (P-006) and, second, in his capacity as President, Joint Council 64 of Connecticut. (P-007). The text of these protests is identical to that filed by International Trustee De Rusha.
By letter dated January 25, 1995, Max Aud, President of Local Union 347 filed a protest over the "questionable practice" of isolated mergers by General President Carey (P-008). President Aud asks the Election Officer to enjoin the actions of the General President to guarantee an "equitable, free and fair election . . .".
In a letter dated April 6, 1995, International Trustee De Rusha filed another protest citing eleven specific mergers. (P-020).[2] De Rusha argues that the speed of the processing of these mergers without any input by the Local Unions, Joint Councils or membership indicates they were "improperly motivated." He also alleges irreparable harm.
John F. Murphy, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
The Election Officer’s investigation of these protests was conducted in conjunction with the protests in cases P-013-LU 504-SCE, P-014-LU 157-SCE, P-015-LU 380-SCE, P-016-LU 157-SCE, P-016-LU 157-SCE, P-023-LU 232-SCE and P-024-LU 990-SCE, which concern specific mergers and therefore were consolidated in a decision which is being issued as a companion to these protests (referred to herein as the "Merger of Specific Local Unions Decision"). The Election Officer’s investigation of these protests was conducted by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens and Election Office Headquarters Staff Attorney Tara Levy.
The Election Officer considered the allegations contained in the protests and the supporting documents submitted by the protestors and their counsel.[3] In addition, the Election Officer directed her own investigation, which included a review of the merger files maintained at the office of the IBT in Washington, D.C.
As set forth in the Merger of Specific Local Unions Decision, P-013-LU504-SCE, et al., the Election Officer’s investigation included an interview of Richard Bell, Administrative Assistant to the General Secretary-Treasurer, which concerned the IBT’s process for determining mergers of Local Unions.
For the reasons set forth in the Merger of Specific Local Unions Decision, supplemented by the following, the Election Officer finds no violation of the Rules in the instant protests.
With the exception of the protest filed by International Trustee DeRusha in P-020-IBT-SCE, addressed below, the protests here do not address mergers of specific Local Unions. Taken togerther, the complainants object generally to allegedly planned mergers by the International Union because they are being implemented without adequate prior notice, without permitting a membership vote upon the mergers and through an allegedly well-designed plan to rid General President Carey of the vocal opposition from these smaller local unions. In addition, the protestors allege, the intent of the mergers is to increase General President Carey’s control over the 1996 International Convention by reducing the number of overall delegates and increasing the number of delegates elected from Local Unions favorable to the General President.
Unlike the Merger of Specific Local Unions Decision, there are no actual mergers in these protests. What is before the Election Officer is the allegation, which is not supported by the evidence, that there is an overall plan to selectively merge Local Unions with less than 500 members.
As set forth in the companion case, the role and authority of the Election Officer is circumscribed by Article I of the Rules. As the Election Officer stated in the Merger of Specific Local Unions Decision:
John F. Murphy, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
It is not the role of the Election Officer to scrutinize the general policy decisions of the International Union, except as they relate to her grant of authority. The Election Officer therefore, only would find a violation if there is evidence of a nexus arising to a violation of the Rules between the mergers and the delegate and alternate delegate nomination and election process or the general election nomination and election process.
Merger of Specific Local Unions Decision at pp. 14-15.
Article XIV, Section 1 of the Rules places the burden on the complainants "to present evidence that a violation has occurred." . Here, unlike the Merger of Specific Local Unions Decision where in fact specific mergers had occurred, the complainants conjecture of alleged future design cannot arise to a violation of the Rules.
The only one of these protests addressing the merger of specific Local Unions is P-020-IT-SCE filed by International Trustee De Rusha. International Trustee De Rusha cites eleven mergers of specific Local Unions (including those addressed in the Merger of Specific Local Union Decision).[4] See footnote 2, supra. He, however, presents no evidence that these mergers were proposed and implemented to quiet dissent or to affect the election process. Nevertheless, the analysis regarding the rights of members set forth in the Merger of Specific Local Unions decision is applicable to the protest of International Trustee DeRusha:
. . . The rights of the members of the merged Local Unions under Title I and Title IV of the LMRDA have not been affected.
* * *
In order to be nominated to run for International Office, candidates need only receive five percent of the delegate votes cast. See Article IV, Section 5(h). . . .[T]here is no evidence that the ability of any “candidate” to achieve five percent of delegates, who themselves are yet to be elected, has been affected. The delegates themselves, and the nominated candidates are elected in rank and file one member, one vote elections.
* * *
John F. Murphy, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
Mergers of Local Unions are among the institutional functions of international unions. Local No. 48 v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 920 F.2d 1047 (1st Cir. 1990). The Election Officer will not disturb a legitimate union function and will grant the union a wide range of discretion, unless there is substantial evidence presented that the mergers were based upon irrelevant or invidious considerations, and implemented to affect the election process.
Footnotes omitted. Merger of Specific Local Unions Decision at p.16.
The mergers cited in International Trustee DeRusha’s protest were effective well before the delegate and general elections. The allegations of retaliation do not support the finding of a violation. The allegations of procedural irregularities (e.g., failure to allow the membership to vote on the merger), assuming they actually occurred in these mergers, are unsupported. As the Election Officer noted in the Merger of Specific Local Unions Decision, “The IBT Constitution clearly permits mergers without membership vote or advance notification and an opportunity for the Local Union to argue against the merger. (See Article IX, Section 11 of the IBT Constitution leaving a membership vote to the discretion of the GEB, and such vote, even if conducted, is only advisory.) ” Merger of Specific Local Unions Decision at p.17.
For the foregoing reasons, P-002-LU 122-SCE, P-003-JC 8-SCE, P-004-LU 506-SCE, P-005-IT-SCE, P-006-LU 1150-SCE, P-007-JC 64-SCE, and P-008-LU 347-SCE and P-020-IT-SCE are DENIED.
If any interested party is not satisfied with this determination, they may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of their 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:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon
180 Maiden Lane, 36th Floor
New York, NY 10038
fax (212) 248-2655
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: Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy
John F. Murphy, et al.
June 30, 1995
Page 1
[1]These “reach-back” protests were filed prior to final promulgation of the Rules on April 24, 1995, and, in some instances, allege violations occurring prior to the issuance of the Rules. The Rules at Article XIV, Section 2(a), state:
Protests regarding violations of the LMRDA (including violations of the IBT Constitution) allegedly occurring prior to the date of issuance of the Rules and protests regarding any conduct allegedly occurring within the first twenty-eight (28) days after issuance of the Rules must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance, or such protests shall be waived.
In acknowledging receipt of the protest, the Election Officer advised each of the complainants that the Election Officer had determined to treat the protest for processing purposes as having been filed as of the effective date of the final rules April 24, 1995 and to thereafter conduct an investigation pursuant to those rules.
[2]International Trustee De Rusha states the following Local Unions are planned as mergers by the International Union: Local 99 into Local 783; Local 226 into Local 302; Local 232 into Local 294; Local 360 into Local 968; Local 526 into Local 251; Local 930 into Local 79; Local 976 into Local 222; Local 1055 into Local 696; Local 1111 into Local 968; Local 157 into Local 25; and Local 380 into Local 25. In another decision issued on this date, the Election Officer considers protests filed over the merger of Local 232 into 294; Local 930 into Local 79, Local 157 into Local 25, and Local 380 into Local 25.
[3]On May 10, 1995, Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq., Baptiste and Wilder, P.C., submitted a statement on behalf of the protest filed in P-023. On May 30, 1995, Attorney Szymanski, and on June 25, 1995, Attorney Robert M. Baptiste, submitted supplemental positions and evidence concerning “Forced Merger of Smaller Local Unions.”
[4]Records of the International Union indicate that the merger Local Union 99 into Local Union 783 was effective on March 17, 1995; the merger of Local Union 226 into Local Union 302 was effective February 24, 1995; the merger of Local Union 360 into Local Union 968 was effective March 31, 1995; the merger of Local Union 526 into Local Union 251 was effective February 10, 1995; the merger of Local Union 976 into Local Union 222 was effective March 1, 1995; the merger of Local Union 1055 into Local Union 696 was effective March 16, 1995; and the merger of Local Union 1111 into Local Union 968 was effective January 31, 1995.