Protest Decisions

Re: Election Office Case P-189-LU486-MGN

       P-190-LU486-MGN

Gentlemen:

Related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-96 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). In P-189-LU486-MGN, David Dunning, a member of Local Union 486 and a candidate for delegate filed a protest claiming that the Dave Robinson slate should not be allowed to add the name “Teamsters for Change”on their slate declaration form. Mr. Dunning contends that this addition to the name “was done to confuse the members and cause them to cast their votes in an uninformed and capricious fashion.”  In P-190-LU486- MGN, James Ayers, a member of Local Union 486 and a candidate for delegate on the Dave Robinson slate, filed a protest claiming that Mr. Dunning should not be permitted to call his slate “Teamsters for Change.”  Mr. Ayers contends that “Teamsters for Change” is a name directly connected with the Dave Robinson slate during prior elections, and to allow Mr. Dunning to use this name “will encourage confusion which is obviously their intent.”  Because these protests raise identical factual and legal issues, they were consolidated by the Election Officer.

These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

The facts are not in dispute.  In 1992, Dave Robinson ran for secretary-treasurer of the local union against an incumbent candidate on the “Teamsters for Change” slate.  All of the members on Mr. Robinson’s current delegate slate were either candidates on his 1992 local union election slate or supported that slate.  In 1992, David Dunning also ran in the local union elections on the “Working Teamster Slate.”  Mr. Robinson won the 1992 local union election.

In 1995, Mr. Robinson, as the incumbent secretary-treasurer and the other incumbent officers ran in the local union election at the “Dave Robinson slate.”  Mr. Robinson and his slate did not use the “Teamsters for Change” slogan either in their slate name or in their campaign materials.    Mr. Dunning ran as an individual candidate whose name appeared on the ballot as “David ‘Watchdog’ Dunning.”

On October 6, 1995, Mr. Dunning transmitted by facsimile a slate declaration form to Regional Coordinator Wertheimer and to Local Union 486.  On the from he designated his slate as “Teamsters for Change.”  Regional Coordinator Wertheimer did not sign the slate form but brought it with him to the nomination meeting on October 8.  Upon entering the local union hall, Mr. Wertheimer observed bumper stickers that read “Teamsters for Change/Dave Robinson Slate.”

During the nomination meeting, the regional coordinator provided a slate declaration from to Mr. Robinson and his slate members.  Initially, they filled out the form using the slate name, “Dave Robinson Slate.”  Before Regional Coordinator Wertheimer signed off on the slate forms, Mr. Ayers amended the name on the form by adding “(Teamsters for Change).”  Mr. Ayers admitted that he would not have added “Teamsters for Change” to the declaration, if Mr. Dunning had not chosen that name for his slate.  At the conclusion of the nomination meeting, Mr. Wertheimer met with Mr. Ayers, and Marti Murphy, a member of Mr. Dunning’s slate and recommended that both slates file protests with the Election Officer if they objected to each other’s slate names.

Mr. Ayers admits that the Dave Robinson slate did not begin to use the “Teamsters for Change” campaign materials until the day before the nomination meeting.[1]  Mr. Ayers also readily admits that the distribution of these materials was in reaction to the use of the “Teamsters for Change” name on the slate declaration form submitted by Mr. Dunning.  However, Mr. Ayers credibly states that it was always the intention of the Dave Robinson slate to use the “Teamsters for Change” term as a campaign slogan and to distribute the previously printed campaign materials containing this slogan.

Given the previous use of the “Teamsters for Change” name by the incumbent officers, the Election Officer concludes that Mr. Dunning was aware of the previous use of this name and had reason to believe that the Dave Robinson slate would attempt to utilize the name for its slate or on its campaign materials.  Although Mr. Dunning claims that the attempt by Mr. Ayers to amend the slate name on the slate declaration form at the nomination meeting is a violation of the Rules, he does not offer a plausible explanation for the choice of the name, other than his slate declared it first.

In a recent decision involving slate names, the Election Officer stated:

Under the Rules, the Election Officer is charged with ensuring the “conduct of fair, honest, open and informed elections.”  Article I.  Thus, in considering protests over slate names, the Election Officer will review whether the name would interfere with these criteria.  Generally, however, the Election Officer will permit parties wide breadth in the selection of a slate name, so long as the name is not chosen to materially mislead the voters.

Holland, et al., P-188-LU480-SCE, et seq. (October 12, 1995).

At Article XIII, the Rules incorporate certain provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, as amended (“LMRDA”), including Section 401(c) which requires “adequate safeguards to insure a fair election . . .”    In interpreting this section of the LMRDA, the courts have found a violation where the ballot in an election invited confusion.  See DeArment v. Local 563, Laborers International Union of North America, 751 F. Supp. 1364 (D. Minn. 1990) (Permitting the name of a dead person to remain on the ballot invited confusion.); Reich v. Federation of Catholic Teachers, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 716 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (Designating one slate name on the ballot while omitting that of the opposition, was unfair within the meaning of §401(c).)

The Election Officer finds that for Mr. Dunning to choose the slate name “Teamsters for Change” in a situation where, as here, it is likely to confuse the members, it is in violation of Article XIII of the Rules, and does not provide the voters in Local Union 486 to have an informed vote.   In so doing, the Election Officer makes this finding based upon the unique circumstances presented in this protest and her finding that Mr. Dunning used this slogan, at least in part, to confuse the voters.  The Election Officer rejects the arguments of Mr. Dunning that the attempt by Mr. Ayers to amend the Dave Robinson Slate was in violation of the Rules.  Neither Article IX, Section 1(b) nor Article IX, Section 2(a) prevented Mr. Ayers from amending the slate name on the declaration form at the nomination meeting.

The Election Officer also finds that given the facts of this case, that it would also confuse the members for the Dave Robinson Slate to utilize “Teamsters for Change” as part of its slate name on the ballot.    The Election Officer notes that Mr. Ayers admits that the Dave Robinson slate had no intention of using “Teamsters for Change” in its slate name until Mr. Dunning had sought the name on his slate declaration form.

This decision only applies to the slate name as it will appear on the ballot and does not limit the rights of either slate to utilize the “Teamster for Change” slogan as part of their campaign materials.  Article VIII, Section 11 guarantees broad rights to union members to participate in campaign activities.

Accordingly, the protests are GRANTED.

When the Election Officer determines that any conduct has occurred which “may prevent . . . a fair, honest, open and informed election,” she may take whatever remedial action is appropriate. 

The Election Officer therefore directs that the members of Mr. Dunning’s slate and the members of the Dave Robinson Slate within one (1) day of receipt of this decision, send a slate declaration from designating a slate name that does not contain the slogan “Teamsters for Change” to Regional Coordinator Wertheimer.

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

William A.Wertheimer egional Coordinator