Protest Decisions

              September 27, 1995

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Alvis Harrington, et al.

September 27, 1995

Page 1

Alvis Harrington, et al.

September 27, 1995

Page 1

RE:  Election Office Case No. P-159-LU890-CSF

Gentlemen:

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Officer Election (“Rules”) by Alvis Harrington and Anthony Vanella, both members of Local Union 890 and candidates for delegate.  The protest is filed against Frank Gallegos, president of Local Union 890, Mike Johnston, a candidate for delegate and representative of the incumbent officers’ slate and Raul Hernandez, vice president of the Local Union (“Incumbents”).  The protest arises from a mailing of campaign material by the incumbent officers’ slate.  The protesters allege that the Rules were violated when the incumbent slate (1) called themselves the “Gallegos/Hernandez/Gonzalez 890 Team,” thus identifying their slate as the slate of Local Union 890; (2) used the Local Union’s return address on the campaign mailing; and (3) allegedly used union funds by using Local 890's mail permit to send out the campaign mailing. 

The incumbents respond that the Rules do not prohibit the use of the local union name and number to describe a slate.  They point out that the use of the Local Union’s return address on election-related mailings is an option made available to all candidates pursuant to the  “Local 890 Policy On Candidate Mailings,” which has been provided to the protesters.  Finally, the incumbents deny the use of any union funds in connection with the mailing, including the use of the mailing permit.

Alvis Harrington, et al.

September 27, 1995

Page 1

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross.

The reference to the incumbent slate as the “Gallegos/Hernandez/Gonzalez 890 Team” fails to constitute a violation of the Rules.  The Rules do not prohibit the reference to a slate of candidates by any particular name or term.

The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 7(g), recommend that “the Union adopt procedures for complying with candidates’ requests for distribution of literature . . .”    Local Union 890 adopted and printed for distribution to all candidates, a document entitled “Local 890 Policy on Candidate Mailings.”    The policy advises on the procedures for candidate mailings, and specifically states that “Candidates may use Local 890's address as a return address on their literature if they so choose.”  The policy also provides that candidates can contact Coastal Mailing Service to have their literature labeled and mailed at their own expense.  All candidates, including the protesters, were advised of the existence of the policy and its terms at the conclusion of the nominations meeting on August 8, 1995.  Protester Vandella admits he may have received a copy of the policy at the end of that meeting.   There is nothing in the Rules which prevents candidates from using the local union’s return address on campaign mailings, as set forth in the Local Union 890 policy.

Article VIII, Section (7)(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that:

(1) Each candidate shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity, equal to that of any other candidate, to have his/her literature distributed by the Union, at the candidate’s expense.  This means: (a) each candidate is entitled to a reasonable number of mailings, whether or not any other candidate makes such request(s); (b) when the Union authorizes distribution of campaign literature on behalf of any candidate, similar distribution under the same conditions and costs shall be made for any other candidate, if requested;

No evidence has been produced to show that this provision was violated by the incumbents.  The evidence in fact established that the incumbents paid for the campaign mailing through funds drawn on the incumbents’ “Campaign Fund,” not the Local Union’s accounts or with local union funds.  Moreover, the incumbents paid for and used the mailing permit of Coastal Mailing Service, not that of the local union.

Based upon the foregoing, 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:

Alvis Harrington, et al.

September 27, 1995

Page 1

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

Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator