Protest Decisions

November 2, 1995

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Thomas R. Gray

November 2, 1995

Page 1

Thomas R. Gray

319 Salisbury

Davis, IL 61019

Clifford T. Chentnik

N3066 Apricot Road

Lake Geneva, WI 53147

LeRoy Ellis, Vice President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

17065 Dixie Highway #36

Hazel Crest, IL 60429

Thomas R. Gray

November 2, 1995

Page 1

Re:   Election Office Case No. P-183-LU325-CHI

Gentlemen:

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-96 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by

Thomas Gray, a member of Local Union 325 and a candidate for delegate.  The protester alleges that International Vice President Leroy Ellis used union resources to campaign for Clifford Chentnik, a member of Local Union 325 and a candidate for delegate, in violation of the Rules.  Mr. Gray contends that, because Mr. Ellis was on union time when he made these appearances with Mr. Chentnik, union resources were used improperly.  In addition,

Mr. Gray believes that campaigning by an International vice president on behalf of one candidate on union time “creates an unfair bias against [Mr. Gray] and the other candidates for delegate” to the point where the Local Union 325 delegate election has been “contaminated.” 

Mr. Ellis does not deny he was on union-paid time when he went to various work sites with Mr. Chentnik on September 29, 1995, but contends he did not engage in campaigning.  According to Mr. Ellis, Mr. Chentnik sent him a letter asking Mr. Ellis to “investigate and talk to the principle (sic) officer about what has been happening and ask him to stop trying to intimidate me.  I don’t feel safe campaigning for the delegate election.”  In his capacity as an International vice president, Mr. Ellis went to Rockford to investigate Mr. Chentnik’s allega-tions of intimidation and campaign obstruction.  Mr. Ellis contends that, in investigating

Mr. Chentnik’s allegations of harassment, he was performing one of his legitimate duties as an International vice president.

Thomas R. Gray

November 2, 1995

Page 1

Regional Coordinator Julie Hamos investigated the protest.

The investigation disclosed that Mr. Chentnik contacted Mr. Ellis on September 28, 1995, after Mr. Chentnik’s car was vandalized on local union property.[1]  Mr. Chentnik asked Mr. Ellis to investigate this and other alleged acts of intimidation that were making him feel unsafe while campaigning.  Mr. Ellis came to Rockford, Illinois, where Local Union 325’s office is located, and met with Secretary-Treasurer Edward Sherman.  After a brief discussion, Mr. Chentnik joined them.  After this meeting, Mr. Ellis agreed to accompany Mr. Chentnik to work sites so that he could determine whether Mr. Chentnik was being threatened or intimidated during campaigning.

One of the locations where Mr. Ellis accompanied Mr. Chentnik was TNT Holland.  A witness at TNT Holland stated that Mr. Ellis “pushed Chentnik” as a candidate for both delegate and local union officer.  This witness, however, could not cite any specific comments made by Mr. Ellis.   Another witness at TNT Holland stated that Mr. Ellis shook hands and introduced himself as an International vice president to employees who were listening to

Mr. Chentnik’s presentation, but did not campaign for or endorse Mr. Chentnik.

The protester also referred to a witness at Cassens Transport who did not respond to repeated requests to participate in the investigation.  The protester did not provide names of witnesses at any other work site.

The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(b), strictly prohibit officers and employees of the union from campaigning on time that is paid for by the union.  There is an exception if the campaigning is incidental to regular union business.  The Election Officer will closely examine allegations of campaigning on union-paid time.

In this case, Mr. Ellis went to Rockford to investigate allegations of intimidation made by Mr. Chentnik.  After his meeting with Mr. Sherman, it is credible that Mr. Ellis would accompany Mr. Chentnik to various work sites to observe whether he was being intimidated while campaigning.  The Election Officer is concerned that there is no evidence that Mr. Ellis advised the members at the worksites as to why he was accompanying Mr. Chentnik, but instead either introduced himself while Mr. Chentnik campaigned or, in some fashion, may have given the impression he supported Mr. Chentnik’s candidacy. 

Clifford T. Chentnik

November 2, 1995

Page 1

Nevertheless, in this case the Election Officer finds that the evidence of Mr. Ellis actually campaigning or endorsing Mr. Chentnik is insufficient to establish a Rules violation. 

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:

Kenneth Conboy, Esq.

Latham & Watkins

885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

New York, NY 10022

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

Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator