August 4, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Gene Giacumbo
August 4, 1995
Page 1
Gene Giacumbo
IBT International Vice President
15 Village Road
Sea Bright, NJ 07760
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Ave.
Washington, DC 20001
John J. Sullivan
Associate General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Ave.
Washington, DC 20001
Bruce Williams, President
Teamsters Local Union 843
446 Morris Avenue
Springfield, NJ 07081
Gene Giacumbo
August 4, 1995
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-029-IBT-PNJ
Gentlemen:
This protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(a) of the Rules for the 1995-96 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”)[1] by Gene Giacumbo,
Gene Giacumbo
August 4, 1995
Page 1
International Vice President. The protester alleges that the April 1995 decision of the International Union to merge Local Union 153 into Local Union 701, and to transfer some members of Local Union 153 into Local Union 102, was motivated by a desire to weaken the political opponents of General President Ron Carey and was thus improper under the Rules.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr.
According to the protester, Local Union 843, in Springfield, New Jersey and Local Union 153, in Hillside, New Jersey form the New Jersey Brewery Workers Joint Local Executive Board, which has a collective bargaining agreement with Anheuser-Busch covering certain employees at the employer’s Newark facility. In April 1995, General President Ron Carey and General Secretary-Treasurer Tom Sever recommended by electronic mail that Local Union 153 be merged into Local Union 701 in North Brunswick, New Jersey, and that the Local Union 153 members who worked at the Anheuser-Busch’s Newark facility be transferred to Local Union 102 in East Orange, New Jersey, which also represented Anheuser-Busch employees in Newark. The International Union stated that the basis for the recommendation for merger and transfer was the lack of growth in Local Union 153's financial reserves and membership and the greater potential for the merged Local Union to initiate organizing activities to increase its membership base. The International Union also stated that prior to the merger and transfer, the Executive Boards and membership of Local Unions 153 and 701 approved the proposed merger of Local Union 153 into Local Union 701, and that the Executive Boards of Local Unions 153, 102 and 701 approved the proposed transfer of Local Union 153 Anheuser-Busch employees into Local Union 102.
The protester does not dispute the International Union’s conclusions as to the viability of Local Union 153. The protester contends that the merger of Local Union 153 violates the Rules because it is motivated by the desire of Mr. Carey to harm one of his opponents in the 1996 International officer elections. Thus, Mr. Giacumbo contends the dissolution of Local Union 153 will weaken the New Jersey Brewery Workers Joint Local Executive Board, which will be comprised solely of Local Union 843, thereby undermining the ability of Local Union 843 (the non-merged Local Union) to represent employees at Anheuser-Busch. According to the protester, the weakness of Local Union 843 will lead to its merger, which will “dilute the delegate strength” of Local Union 843 in the International officer nominations and elections. The protester predicts that the merger will occur because an unnamed Local Union 843 member is an opponent of the Mr. Carey.
In In re: Murphy, 95-Elec. App.-3 (July 26, 1995) (affirming Election Officer in Murphy, Case No. P-002-IBT-SCE) pp. 15-16, the Election Appeals Master stated:
[W]hile a merger of constituent local unions is a presumptively valid exercise of the IBT’s institutional functions, the Rules are violated if it is established that the mergers were meant to retaliate against opposition members and suppress dissent.
Gene Giacumbo
August 4, 1995
Page 1
Conversely, if the mergers were motivated wholly by legitimate reasons, then it is irrelevant whether the mergers impact adversely on a member (by restricting his chance to hold office or a position as a delegate) or result in a “dilution” of the smaller local union’s voting power to vote with the membership of a larger and purportedly politically adverse local.
Citations omitted.
In order to establish that a protested merger is motivated by a purpose to silence political dissent, the merger must have an impact on the process of nomination and election of delegates or officers. In re: Murphy, at pp. 17-18.
Here, there is no evidence to establish that the delegate and officer nomination and election process has been altered by the merger of Local Union 153 into Local Union 701 and the transfer of certain Local Union 153 members to Local Union 102. Moreover, there is no evidence that the International intends to merge Local Union 843. Rather, there is mere speculation by the protester that the merger of Local Union 153 will ease the way for the International Union to merge Local Union 843, thereby eliminating the home local of one of Mr. Carey’s unidentified opponents. Such speculative allegations do not establish a nexus between the merger of Local Union 153 and the IBT delegate and officer nominations and elections, nor do they establish retaliation in violation of the Rules. See, In re: Murphy, at pp. 17-18.
The protest therefore is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of 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
Gene Giacumbo
August 4, 1995
Page 1
(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
Peter V. Marks, Regional Coordinator
[1]This “reach-back” protest was filed within the thirty day period following the final promulgation of the Rules on April 24, 1995, and alleges violations occurring prior to the issuance of the Rules. The Rules at Article XIV, Section 2(a), state:
Protests regarding violations of the [Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, as amended] (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.