November 2, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Gene Giacumbo
November 2, 1995
Page 1
Gene Giacumbo, Vice President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
15 Village Road
Sea Bright, NJ 07760
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
David Laughton, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 843
446 Morris Avenue
Springfield, NJ 07081
John Sullivan
Associate General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Gregory Druker
419 Penns Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
Gene Giacumbo
November 2, 1995
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-177-IBT-PNJ
Gentlemen:
This protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Gene Giacumbo, an IBT vice president. The protester charges that his participation as a candidate for delegate to the International Union convention and his intention to run for local union office have been adversely affected by the IBT’s imposition of a trusteeship upon Local Union 843 on September 25, 1995.[1] The timing of the trusteeship is alleged to be in bad faith and part of an IBT strategy to effectively “disenfranchise” Mr. Giacumbo by delaying Local Union 843's delegate election until after a rumored merger into Local Union 102, thereby decreasing the number of available delegate positions and reducing his support base.
Gene Giacumbo
November 2, 1995
Page 1
As evidence of the IBT’s “bad faith,” Mr. Giacumbo asserts that Local Union 843 has refused his requests to (1) review Local Union 843's membership eligibility and work-site lists, pursuant to Article VIII, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules; (2) obtain copies of the local union election plan described in Article II, Section 4; (3) receive notice of the date, time and location of “the next” Local Union 843 regularly-scheduled general membership meeting as provided under Article VIII, Section 5(b); and (4) obtain the membership labels described under Article VIII, Section 7(d). Mr. Giacumbo further contends that his charge is reinforced by the alleged refusal of Local Union 843 to allow him access to its 1994 LM2 filing and a copy of the union’s “latest” financial report. Mr. Giacumbo also cites his longstanding dispute prior to the trusteeship with Gregory Druker, the president of Local Union 843 prior to the trusteeship. The protester is a complaining witness in a criminal case brought against Mr. Druker now pending in Sea Bright, New Jersey Municipal Court. According to Mr. Giacumbo, all evidence submitted in a prior case to the Election Officer is also relevant to this matter and should be reviewed in support of his current contentions.[2]
The IBT responds by asserting that the trusteeship of Local Union 843 was imposed in good faith and was justified by the circumstances. It denies that its order of trusteeship or any other action made in connection with the application of the trusteeship was motivated by any purpose that would potentially influence Mr. Giacumbo’s political status in an adverse way.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr.
The investigation discloses that Local Union 843 was placed in trusteeship on September 25, 1995 because of its poor financial condition, the refusal of its executive board to take remedial action and other conduct by the executive board which the IBT found to be in conflict with the International Constitution. In the September 25, 1995 notice to the officers and members of Local Union 843 imposing an emergency trusteeship, General President Ron Carey reported:
[A]t the beginning of 1991, Local 843 had assets totaling over $800,000. By July, 1995 the Local Union’s assets had dropped to $65,000. Average membership in Local 843 dropped from 572 in 1991 to 372 this year, a drop of 35% during the past five years. Currently, salaries and benefits of officers and clerical staff take up approximately 90% of the Local Union’s cash receipts from membership dues, leaving only approximately 10% for the Local Union’s other operating expenditures. The Local Union has been forced to draw on its diminishing cash reserves in order to cover the shortfall from operating expenditures.
The notice specifically refers to the fact that Local Union 843, through its executive board, rejected an opportunity to receive financial support from Joint Council 73 and voted to make the president a part-time officer in a manner which violates the International Constitution. The protester has not provided any evidence disputing the IBT’s factual findings for the imposition of the trusteeship.
In support of his contention that Local Union 843 will be merged into Local 102 sometime before 1996, the protester submitted a letter, dated June 16, 1993, from General Secretary-Treasurer Tom Sever. Rather than discuss a proposed merger with Local
Union 102, however, this letter refers to a possible merger into Local Union 153. No other evidence regarding any other merger activity within Joint Council 73 was presented other than that which was submitted previously by the protester in support of P-029-IBT-PNJ.
Local Union 843 recently filed a local union election plan pursuant to Article II, Section 4. Since this plan was submitted after June 30, 1995, its delegate election will be conducted in 1996 as specified by Article II, Section 4(b). There is no evidence that Local Union 843 ever intended to file its election plan on or before June 30, 1995 or ever considered conducting its delegate election in the fall of 1995. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the IBT influenced the timing of the delegate election.
Conduct which is motivated by an alleged retaliatory purpose under the Rules is controlled by Article VIII, Section 11(f), which provides:
Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.
The Rules thus prohibit retaliation for engaging in election-related conduct protected by the Rules. In Re: Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995).
Alleged violations of this section are not sustainable, however, unless there is some evidence which connects, expressly or through reasonable implication, the protested conduct with a guaranteed right under the Rules. Giacumbo, P-100-IBT-PNJ (October 13, 1995). See also, Robbins, et al., P-013-IBT-SCE et seq. (June 30, 1995), aff’d, In Re: Murphy, 95 - Elec. App. - 3 (KC) (July 26, 1995). The power to impose a trusteeship is “among the institutional functions of international unions.” In order to sustain a violation of the Rules, there must be proof that the exercise of such a legitimate internal union activity was based upon “irrelevant or invidious conditions and implemented to affect the election process.” Robbins, supra.
The IBT’s only action that is relevant to this protest is the imposition of the trusteeship on Local Union 843 on September 25, 1995. This trusteeship was ordered for reasons which are consistent with the LMRDA.[3] No evidence has been submitted demonstrating any pretext to the IBT’s imposition of the trusteeship. The IBT is factually unconnected to any of the various actions referred to by the protester as proof of the IBT’s “bad faith.” The failure of Local Union 843 to respond to his various requests for these documents and information is not linked to the IBT or to any strategy which adversely affects his viability as a candidate.[4] There is no evidence to show that Local Union 843 ever decided to hold its elections prior to 1996. The evidence submitted to demonstrate the proposed merger is from 1993 and refers to another local union. The pending criminal charges are not tied to the allegations made and none of the material previously submitted by the protester relates to his current assertions.
Accordingly, the protest must be 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.
Latham and Watkins
885 Third Ave., Suite 1000
New York, NY XXX-XX-XXXX
Fax (212) 751-4864
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
Gene Giacumbo
November 2, 1995
Page 1
[1]Under Article I of the Rules, the Election Officer has no authority over local union elections.
[2]The case to which the protester refers is Giacumbo, P-029-IBT-PNJ (August 4, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 10 (KC) (September 5, 1995). In that matter, Mr. Giacumbo alleged that the IBT’s decision to merge Local Union 153 into Local 701 and transfer some members of Local Union 153 into Local Union 102 was motivated to unfavorably affect a political opponent of General President Ron Carey. The Election Officer ruled that the merger was a valid exercise of the IBT’s institutional functions and that there was insufficient proof of any improper motivation under the Rules.
[3]Section 304(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended (“LMRDA”), 29 USC 401 et seq., and the accompanying legislative history provides that the first 18 months of a trusteeship is presumed valid when imposed for a purpose specified in the law and in compliance with the procedural requirements of a labor organization’s constitution and bylaws after fair hearing.
[4]The failure of the local union to supply Mr. Giacumbo with membership eligibility and work-site lists, meeting information, the election plan, membership labels, financial reports and LM2 filings were not separately protested. The protester has no right to view the membership eligibility list until 30 days prior to the casting of ballots, according to Article VII, Section 2 of the Rules. His requests were made weeks prior to the date the election plan was actually filed. However, as a candidate, the protester is entitled to a work-site list, meeting information and membership labels, pursuant to the requirements stated in Article VIII, Section 7. The Election Officer has requested the regional coordinator obtain from Local Union 843 commitments to supply the protester with these items, upon request.