October 26, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Ron Carey, et al.
October 26, 1995
Page 1
Ron Carey, et al.
October 26, 1995
Page 1
Ron Carey, General President International Brotherhood of Teamsters 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
Judith A. Scott, General Counsel International Brotherhood of Teamsters 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
Real Teamster Caucus P.O. Box 34285 Chicago, IL 60604
Chuck Mack, President Teamsters Joint Council 7 150 Executive Park Boulevard Suite 2900 San Francisco, CA 94134
Robert G. DeRusha, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Joint Council 10 650 Beacon Street, Room 501 Boston, MA 02215
Anthony Rumore, President Teamsters Joint Council 16 265 W. 14th Street, Room 1201 New York, NY 10011 Dan F. Darrow, President Teamsters Joint Council 41 3150 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114
Michael J. Riley, President Teamsters Joint Council 42 1616 W. Ninth Street, Room 500 Los Angeles, CA 90015
T. C. Stone, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Joint Council 80 1007 Jonelle Street Dallas, TX 75217
William T. Hogan, Jr., President Teamsters Joint Council 25 1645 W. Jackson, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60612
Lawrence Brennan, President Teamsters Joint Council 43 2801 Trumbull Avenue Detroit, MI 48216
Frank H. Wood, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 28 5318 Wade Hampton Boulevard Taylors, SC 29687
Stephen J. Mack, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 78 492 C Street Hayward, CA 94541
Daniel J. Kane, President Teamsters Local Union 111 50 Broad Street New York, NY 10004
John F. Murphy, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 122 650 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02215 |
| Joseph F. Bennetta, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 191 1139 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06605
R. V. Durham, President Teamsters Local Union 391 3100 Sandy Ridge Road Colfax, NC 27235
Joseph W. Morgan, Jr., President Teamsters Local Union 444 211 Pontotoc Auburndale, FL 33823
Joseph J. Sullivan, President Teamsters Local Union 470 3565 Sepviva Street Philadelphia, PA 19134
Bobby Logan, President Teamsters Local Union 515 4431 Bonny Oaks Drive Chattanooga, TN 37416
Jerry Younger, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 554 4349 S. 90th Street Omaha, NE 68127
Jerome L. Vercruse, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 630 750 S. Stanford Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90021
Joel LeFevre, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 840 345 W. 44th Street New York, NY 10036
Jim Santangelo, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 848 9960 Baldwin Place El Monte, CA 91731
W. C. (Willie) Smith, President Teamsters Local Union 891 2560 Valley Street Jackson, MS 39204
Jack Powers, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 1150 150 Garfield Avenue Stratford, CT 06497
James P. Hoffa 2593 Hounds Chase Troy, MI 48098
Robert M. Baptiste Baptiste and Wilder 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036
Hugh J. Beins Beins, Axelrod, Osborne & Mooney The Colorado Building 1341 G Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005
Sherman Carmell Carmell, Sharone & Widmer 225 W. Washington Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60606 |
|
|
|
Sorrell Logothetis Logothetis, Pence and Doll 111 W. First Street, Suite 1100 Dayton, OH 45402
Stephen R. Domesick 132 Boyleston Street Boston, MA 02116 |
| George A. Pappy Pappy and Davis 3424 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90010
|
|
|
|
Ron Carey, et al.
October 26, 1995
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-032-LU245-PNJ, et seq.
Gentlepersons:
Related pre-election protests have been filed pursuant to Article XIV, Sections 2(a) and (b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules") concerning the formation and financing of the Real Teamsters Caucus (“RTC”) by certain members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”). Several protests allege that the RTC engages in campaign-related activities and that its use of members’ dues money therefore violates the Rules.[1] Other protests allege that IBT warnings to members about the RTC's possible illegal conduct is itself a form of retaliation against RTC members for exercising free-speech rights.[2]
Ron Carey, et al.
October 26, 1995
Page 1
By letter dated October 11, 1995, the IBT requested that the Election Officer stay any decision in these related cases pending the completion of discovery[3] in two civil actions currently before Judge Edelstein, Central Conferences v. IBT, 94 Civ. 2247 (S.D.N.Y.) and Darrow. The IBT argues that these cases are fact-intensive and raise matters which relate, in whole or in part, to the activities of the RTC.
On October 17, 1995, the Election Officer notified all parties to the above cases and solicited their position on the IBT’s request. Through counsel, the RTC, Joint Council 42, Local 391, R. V. Durham, T. C. Stone, James P. Hoffa, Dan Darrow, John Murphy and Chuck Mack all submitted statements opposing the requested stay. Mr. Gilmartin states that he does not oppose the stay. Counsel for Messrs. Jacob, Ruscigno and Sullivan support some delay to take advantage of the civil action discovery. Counsel for the IBT submitted an additional statement in support of their request.
After careful consideration, the Election Officer will deny the request for a stay. The Rules envision a simplified procedure by which protests are rapidly submitted, investigated and adjudicated. To facilitate the speedy resolution of disputes, the time limits set by the Rules are extremely short: protesters have two days in which to file protests and one day in which to file appeals of Election Officer decisions. The Election Officer has seven days (21 days in reach-back cases) in which to decide cases and the Election Appeals Master has four days (seven days in reach-back cases) in which to hold a hearing and another three days (seven days in reach-back cases) in which to issue a decision. While the Election Officer initially was constrained in rendering timely decisions due to the extensive backlog of often complex and multifaceted reach-back protests, this period is drawing to a close. The Election Officer has an obligation to render prompt decisions and a grant of a stay as requested by the IBT conflicts with her obligation.
With a decision on many of these instant protests already overdue, the Election Officer cannot commit to a schedule whereby no decision could be rendered for months. The close of discovery in the civil cases is not yet scheduled. Further, experience teaches that parties frequently do not complete discovery on time and may require extensions of time. Granting the IBT request would mean, in effect, linking the timing of these protests to the progress of a civil action before a different tribunal. Finally, while the facts somewhat overlap, the legal issues before the Election Officer are different than those before the Court in Central Conferences, and narrower than those in Darrow.
Ron Carey, et al.
October 26, 1995
Page 1
Certainly some of the discovery in the civil actions appears relevant to the Election Officer’s investigation of the instant protests, and receipt of such materials from the parties as it is produced would be of great assistance. In the event the Election Officer decides that she needs a particular piece or type of evidence that has been produced through discovery, she may elect to obtain it from the parties to the litigation. However, the Election Officer may also decide to use her own authority to obtain evidence as part of her investigative procedure.[4]
For the foregoing reasons, the request for a stay is DENIED. The Election Officer will continue to investigate this matter and will issue a decision as expeditiously as possible. In the meantime, any party to these protests who has relevant evidence should submit it to the Election Officer forthwith, whether it comes from the pending civil actions or from other sources.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
[1] P-032, filed May 23, 1995 by Tom Gilmartin, Jr.; P-074, filed May 24, 1995 by James Jacob, Michael Ruscigno and Darryl Sullivan; P-123, filed May 24, 1995 by the IBT. By letter dated October 17, 1995, the Election Officer approved the IBT’s request to withdraw its protest in
P-123.
[2] P-058, filed May 24, 1995 by Chuck Mack; P-094, filed June 20, 1995 by James P. Hoffa;
P-185, filed October 4, 1995 by John Murphy. Mr. Murphy had also requested interim relief from the Election Officer to prevent the IBT from enforcing its recent order against the RTC until his protest had been finally adjudicated. After the IBT granted a request for a stay on portions of its order, the request for interim relief was withdrawn, and the withdrawal was approved by the Election Officer on October 25, 1995.
In addition, RTC officers and members filed suit against the IBT in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the IBT warnings about joining the RTC constitute retaliation for exercising in protected free speech, in violation of the Labor-Management Relations Disclosure Act. Darrow v. IBT, No. 94 Civ. 02113 (D.D.C.) (complaint filed September 30, 1995). On motion of the United States Attorney, the Honorable Judge David N. Edelstein enjoined the Darrow plaintiffs from maintaining the D.C. action, stating that the dispute must be adjudicated as part of the continuing RICO case before him. United States v. IBT, 88 Civ. 4486 (S.D.N.Y. August 18, 1995). That matter is still pending before Judge Edelstein.
[3] Although the IBT refers to seeking “deferral” of a decision pending the completion of discovery, it would seem that the IBT is not asking the election Officer to defer to the adjudication of another tribunal, but simply to postpone any decision until it can take advantage of the discovery product of a different case.
[4] See United States v. IBT, 931 F.2d 177, 187 (2d Cir. 1991) (“The Election Officer . . . has substantial discretion to impose election rules and procedures that ensure that the upcoming elections are free, fair and informed”).