July 28, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Timothy W. Dunn
July 28, 1995
Page 1
Timothy W. Dunn
37 Southwick Road
North Reading, MA XXX-XX-XXXX
George W. Cashman
President/Business Agent
IBT Local Union 25
544 Main street
Boston, Mass. 02129
Timothy W. Dunn
July 28, 1995
Page 1
RE: Election Office Case No. P-110-LU25-BOS
Gentlemen:
A protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b), of the Rules for the IBT 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Timothy W. Dunn, a member of Local Union 259. Mr. Dunn alleges that George W. Cashman, President of Local Union 25, interfered in an intimidating and menacing manner when Mr. Dunn was attempting to obtain signatures on behalf of a candidate supported by Mr. Dunn and again as Mr. Dunn stood listening to a debate at a Joint Council 10 meeting on July 11, 1995.
The protest was investigated by Associate Regional Coordinator David F. Reilly.
On the evening of July 11, 1995, Mr. Dunn attended a Joint Council 10 meeting at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston as New England Coordinator for General President Candidate James P. Hoffa. Mr. Dunn set up tables in the hall outside the meeting room and placed materials, booklets and clipboards with accreditation petitions on the tables. All persons entering the meeting hall walked directly past the tables.
Timothy W. Dunn
July 28, 1995
Page 1
At approximately 8:00 p.m., just before the meeting was to commence, Mr. Cashman, along with members of his staff and supporters, approached the table. Mr. Dunn asked Mr. Cashman if he would care to sign the accreditation petition and held up a copy on a clipboard. Mr. Cashman responded “You know where I stand.” Mr. Cashman then walked around the table and, in an angry manner, asked if Mr. Dunn was trying to embarrass him. Mr. Dunn contends that Mr. Cashman continued to speak to him in this manner for a few minutes and made it impossible for Mr. Dunn to have any freedom of movement. After several minutes, according to Mr. Dunn, Mr. Cashman relented and walked into the meeting room. At no time were there any threats or physical contact between the two men.
Mr. Cashman states that as he approached the tables outside of the meeting room, Mr. Dunn asked him in a loud, sarcastic voice whether he would sign the papers for Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy. Mr. Cashman contends that, since he and Mr. Dunn had an hour long conversation approximately four months earlier about their philosophical differences between the Carey and Hoffa candidacies, he was surprised to hear that Dunn ask him to sign the Hoffa accredation petition. In that context, Mr. Cashman asked “Tim, are you trying to embarrass me? You know my position and who gave you permission to put the tables at this location? The Joint Council or the hotel?” Mr. Cashman asserts that the conversation took less than a minute and, at no time, were voices raised or threats made. Upon learning that the table was obtained by Mr. Dunn from another area in the mezzanine of the hotel, Mr. Cashman indicated that he turned and went into the mezzanine of the hotel. Mr. Cashman indicated that he then turned and went into the meeting hall. He denies blocking Mr. Dunn’s “escape route” and denies blocking Mr. Dunn’s access to individuals entering the hall.
In the second allegation of interference, Mr. Dunn asserts that approximately a half hour later, while standing in the back of the room and listening to a debate inside the Joint Council 10 meeting, Mr. Cashman rose from his seat, came to the back of the room, and stood directly in front of him in “an obvious attempt to intimidate” him. Mr. Dunn states that when he shifted his position sideways, Mr. Cashman moved in the same direction blocking Mr. Dunn’s view of the proceedings. Mr. Dunn also contends that Mr. Cashman followed him when he returned to the tables outside the meeting and “hovered around” causing members to be intimidated from signing the petitions.
Mr. Cashman acknowledges standing in the back of the room but denies any intentional attempt to block Mr. Dunn’s view of the meeting. He indicates he had made some comments at the microphone which is located approximately halfway up the center aisle, and then moved to the rear of the hall in order to hear the responses from the individuals on the podium and other speakers. Mr. Cashman states that he faced the front at all times and was unaware of Mr. Dunn’s presence behind him during the meeting.
With respect to the incident prior to the meeting at the tables outside of the meeting room, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Dunn initiated the discussion by asking Mr. Cashman to sign the accredation petition for Mr. Hoffa, whom he knew Mr. Cashman did not support. Mr. Cashman’s response, whether evincing surprise or irritation, was well within the bounds of permissible campaign discussion and response. At no time did Mr. Cashman threaten Mr. Dunn or otherwise take steps to prevent him from continuing to collect signatures
Timothy W. Dunn
July 28, 1995
Page 1
or otherwise campaign on behalf of his candidate. The fact that Mr. Cashman engaged Mr. Dunn in a discussion, even a heated one, does not constitute a violation of the Rules which are designed to ensure fair, honest, open and informed elections. See, Scott, P-1092-LU745-SOU (November 21, 1991) (Threatening words by a supporter of a candidate to a supporter of an opposing candidate in the context of ongoing animosity and where no fight erupted not found to violate the Rules.)
The allegation that Mr. Cashman stood directly in front of Mr. Dunn during a portion of the meeting and later was near the tables in the hall does not, in the absence of evidence of more overt conduct, constitute a violation of the Rules. The Election Officer finds that there was no direct or implied threat in Mr. Cashman’s physical presence in these two areas. The Election Officer finds that even if Mr. Cashman did, in fact, intentionally place himself in front of Dunn during a portion of the meeting, that fact, standing alone, does not constitute a violation of the Rules.
Additionally, the action by Mr. Cashman in leaving the union meeting hall and standing immediately outside the area where Mr. Dunn had set up his tables, does not constitute a violation of the Rules. Just as Mr. Dunn had a right to campaign in support of his candidate, Mr. Cashman also had a right to be present and engage in conduct in support of his position with respect to the contested election process. Rules, Article VIII, Section 11; Cleaton, P-1033-LU579-NCE (November 14, 1991) (A heated exchange between two members supporting different candidate is not a violation of the Rules.)
Based on the foregoing reasons, the protest in DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination 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
Timothy W. Dunn
July 28, 1995
Page 1
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
David F. Reilly, Associate Regional Coordinator