August 23, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
David L. Dethrow
August 23, 1995
Page 1
David L. Dethrow
2843 Radnor
St. Charles, MO 63301
Rich Schildknecht, President
Teamsters Local Union 688
300 S. Grand Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63103
Joseph A. Galli, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 688
300 S. Grand Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63103
David L. Dethrow
August 23, 1995
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-038-LU688-PNJ
P-039-LU688-PNJ
Gentlemen:
David L. Dethrow
August 23, 1995
Page 1
Pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(a) of the Rules of the 1995-96 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).[1] The protester David L. Dethrow, a member of Local Union 688, contends in P-038-LU688-PNJ that Local Union 688 Secretary-Treasurer Joseph A. Galli and Local Union President Rich Schildknecht violated the Rules by impermissibly discriminating against a candidate during the April 20, 1994 Stewards’ Council meeting when they made comments against the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”) and General President Ron Carey and his proposal to abolish the area conferences. In P-039-LU688-PNJ, the protester similarly contends that
Mr. Schildknecht violated the Rules when on May 25, 1994, he made negative comments regarding Mr. Carey and the delegates from Local Union 688 who attended the 1991 IBT Convention.
Mr. Galli and Mr. Schildknecht separately responded to P-038-LU688-PNJ that the content of their statements did not violate the Rules since there was no campaign in progress and there were no candidates at the time the statements were made. Mr. Galli and
Mr. Schildknecht point out that the statements were made in April 1994, and that Local Union 688 delegate nominations and elections will not take place until 1996. There was no response to P-039-LU688-PNJ.
Because these protests raised similar legal and factual issues, they were consolidated by the Election Officer.
The protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr.
The Rules prohibit a Local Union from using its membership meetings to discriminate in favor or against the candidacy of any individual. Specifically, Article VIII, Section 5(a) (4) states:
A Local Union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor of or against any candidate in conjunction with its meeting or otherwise. This requirement shall apply not only to formal presentations by or on behalf of candidates but also to informal campaign activities, such as, for example, comments on candidates during meetings, literature distribution at meetings, literature distribution tables, etc.
David L. Dethrow
August 23, 1995
Page 1
In determining whether a Local Union or its officers violated Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the Rules, the Election Officer must first determine if the individual or individuals commented upon were “candidates”[2] at the time of the meeting. The Election Officer finds that Mr. Carey was not a candidate on April 20, 1994 or May 25, 1994, when Mr. Galli and Mr. Schildknecht made their comments at the Stewards’ Council meetings. See, Martin,
P-010-IBT-PNJ et al. (August 17, 1995). There is no evidence that any Local Union members who were supportive of the TDU, or that any of the delegates from Local Union 688 who attended the 1991 IBT Convention, were candidates for delegate or alternate delegate to the 1996 IBT Convention within the meaning of the Rules, in April or May 1994.
Based on these findings, the Election Officer determines that the comments at issue do not constitute campaigning and, therefore, were not subject to the nondiscrimination provisions of the Rules.
For the foregoing reasons, the protest 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 (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Peter V. Marks, Sr., Regional Coordinator
[1] These “reach-back” protests were filed within the 30-day period following the 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 [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 (30) days of the date of issuance, or such protests shall be waived.
[2] Under the Rules,"candidate" is defined as:
[A]ny member who is actively seeking nomination or election for any Convention delegate or alternate delegate position or International Officer position. The term includes any member who has accepted any campaign contribution as defined by the Rules or made any expenditure, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution or expenditure is to influence the election of that member to any such position.