December 18, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Clifford T. Chentnik
N3066 Apricot Road
Lake Geneva, WI 53147
Edward J. Sherman, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 325
5533 Eleventh Street
Rockford, IL 61109
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-223-LU325-CHI
P-224-LU325-CHI
P-225-LU325-CHI
Gentlemen:
Three pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Officer Election (“Rules”) by
Clifford T. Chentnik, a member of Local Union 325 and a candidate for delegate. Pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules, the Election Officer deferred the protests for consideration post-election.
Clifford T. Chentnik
December 18, 1995
Page 1
The protester alleges that: (1) Local Union 325 failed to provide the protester’s slate with a complete work-site list (P-223-LU325-CHI); (2) his ability to challenge ballots was limited by the Election Officer’s failure to include TITAN[1] employer codes on address labels affixed to envelopes provided to the Local Union 325 membership for the return of their ballots (P-224-LU325-CHI); and (3) Local Union 325 Secretary-Treasurer Ted Sherman, also a candidate for delegate, compiled and used a list of Local 325 members’ telephone numbers to campaign for his own slate without providing the list to the protester’s slate (P-225-LU325-CHI).
Mr. Sherman responds that Local Union 325 used its best efforts to prepare the work-site list. As to the list of telephone numbers, Mr. Sherman admits that the local union has been compiling a list, but denies that it was used for campaigning by his slate. He concedes, however, that his business agents, using their “personal” lists of telephone numbers of members for employers or contracts to which the agent is assigned, may have telephoned members on behalf of Mr. Sherman’s slate.
The Election Officer consolidated the protests because each involves the Local
Union 325 delegate election.
The Local Union 325 delegate election was held November 4, 1995. The local union is entitled to one delegate and one alternate delegate. The protester and David W. Barker comprised the “Local 325 Real Teamsters Protecting Members’ Rights” slate. Mr. Sherman and Johnny D. Calhoun ran as the “Sherman & Calhoun” slate. Local Union 325 President Steven C. Lindquist and George W. Freeman formed the “Lindquist-Freeman” slate. There were two additional independent candidates for delegate. Following is the total votes received by each candidate:
Delegates
Candidate Vote
Edward (Ted) Sherman 516
Steven C. Lindquist 101
Clifford T. Chentnik 95
Thomas R. Gray 8
Donald A. Sowl II 5
Alternates
Candidate Vote
John Calhoun 520
David Barker 96
George W. Freeman, Jr. 94
The protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Julie Hamos.
I. Work-site List
Clifford T. Chentnik
December 18, 1995
Page 1
The protester claims that the work-site list provided to his slate by Local Union 325 omitted several employers and work sites, and contained numerous bad or incomplete addresses. Local Union 325 responds that it included in the work-site list all of the information required by the Rules. It contends that the only omissions from the list may have been the names of owner-operators who lease their equipment to other companies and do not employ local union members on site, and the addresses of temporary construction sites.
During the investigation, the protester named three companies that were omitted from the work-site list provided to him. The local union responded that two of the companies lease their equipment and do not employ IBT members at their address, and the third company has gone out of business.
The protester then supplied the investigator with a list of 36 employers whom he contended should have been on the work-site list. The Regional Coordinator contacted a random sample consisting of one-third of the protester’s list of employers, within which she found only one employer who did not appear on the work-site list. This employer employed four Local Union 325 members.
Article VIII, Section 1(b) of the Rules provides each candidate the right “to a current list of all sites, with corresponding addresses, where any and all Local Union members work.” Although the local union attempted to comply with this section, some work-sites where a few members of Local Union 325 work may have been omitted from the work-site list, in violation of Article VIII, Section 1(b).
II. Employer Codes on Mailing Labels
The protester contends that his ability to challenge ballots was hindered by the Election Officer’s failure to include TITAN employer codes on the mailing labels placed on envelopes provided to members for return of their ballots.
The Rules do not require the Election Officer to include employer codes on the address labels of the return envelopes provided to the members along with ballots. Article III,
Section 1(b) requires that the Election Officer or her representative mail a ballot to each “ballot-qualified member” along with “a stamped self-addressed return envelope prelabeled by the Election Officer with the member’s name, address and other data sufficient to identify and distinguish the member.” The information contained on the mailing label is used to check the name on the return envelope against the list of eligible voters pursuant to Article III,
Section 1(j). The data sufficient to identify the member is indicated in Article III, Section 1(e) which states if the preaffixed label on the ballot return envelope is missing, the voter “should write his/her name, address and Social Security number in the upper left-hand corner of the return envelope.”
The Election Officer, in certain elections, has included employer codes on the mailing labels affixed to return envelopes distributed along with ballots. While this has been done for internal, administrative purposes concerning the Election Officer’s supervision of the delegate elections, employer codes are not among the data required to identify members. While
Mr. Chentnik argues that his right to challenge ballots has been compromised because of the omissions of employer codes, he presented no evidence that the absence of the codes prevented him from challenging any ballot.
Clifford T. Chentnik
December 18, 1995
Page 1
III. List of Members’ Telephone Numbers
By letter to Local Union 325 Secretary-Treasurer Ted Sherman dated September 19, 1995, the protester requested, among other items, “any lists [ . . . ] made available to any candidates for Delegate in the upcoming election . . . [f]or example: telephone numbers and addresses of eligible voters . . .” Mr. Sherman wrote the protester the next day assuring him that “[a]ny and all lists that are made available will be provided to each candidate equally.”
Prior to the election, the protester asked Local Union 325 President Steve Lindquist, also a candidate for delegate, why he was not mailing campaign material to the Local
Union 325 membership. The protester states that Mr. Lindquist told him he was using a list of telephone numbers of members and stewards to call the membership. Mr. Lindquist denies making this statement.
On October 30, 1995, the protester arrived unannounced at Mr. Sherman’s campaign office. He saw a Local Union 325 business agent and four members there making telephone calls. When confronted by the protester, the business agent tried to hide the list he was using while telephoning.
A witness told the Regional Coordinator that he had volunteered on several occasions to work at Mr. Sherman’s campaign headquarters. He states that on each occasion, he and several other members were given a list of members’ phone numbers to call on behalf of
Mr. Sherman’s campaign. During the investigation, another witness stated that he had been a local union steward and maintained a list of the approximately 15 members at the terminal he had represented. He made phone calls on behalf of Mr. Sherman from his home utilizing this list. Another member related to the investigator that he had been a steward for eight or nine years. He made telephone calls on behalf of Mr. Sherman from a personal list of members he had developed during that period.
The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(c), prohibit the use of union resources in campaigning unless the union is reimbursed at fair-market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided equal access to such assistance and are notified in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance. It is recognized, however, that in the course of their duties, union officials may acquire information, such as member names and telephone numbers. The use of this information for campaigning does not violate the Rules. Compare with Gregory, Case No. P-606-LU135-SCE (April 16, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 135 (April 29, 1991) (Union representatives may not use their official union positions to obtain phone numbers used for campaign purposes.) Here, the evidence shows that the lists used for campaigning were compiled and personally maintained by stewards in the regular course of their duties in administering a collective bargaining agreement. There is no evidence that these were official union lists, or that they were acquired for the purpose of campaigning. The use of a telephone list in the phone bank acquired in this manner does not violate the Rules.
Clifford T. Chentnik
December 18, 1995
Page 1
IV. Whether the Outcome of the Election Was Affected
Accordingly, Local Union 325 has violated the Rules by providing the protester with an incomplete work-site list. However, these protests are being treated as post-election protests and must therefore satisfy the requirement in Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) of the Rules, which provides: “Post-election protests shall only be considered and remedied if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election.” Thus, a violation of the Rules alone is not grounds for setting aside an election unless there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the election may have been affected by the violation. See Wirtz v. Local Union 410, 366 F.2d 438 (2nd Cir. 1966).
To determine whether such effect exists, the Election Officer determines mathematically whether the effect was sufficient in scope to affect the outcome of the election and/or whether there was a causal connection between the violation and the result or outcome of the election. Dole v. Mailhandlers, Local 317, 132 LRRM 2299 (D.C.M.D. Ala. 1989). Since the Election Officer has determined above that the Rules have been violated in two respects, the issue then becomes whether either or both violations affected the outcome of the election.
The margin of victory between the winning delegate and alternate delegate and the candidates on Mr. Chentnik’s slate was substantial. Out of a total of 725 votes cast, the elected delegate received 421 more votes than did Mr. Chentnik. Out of 710 votes cast, the elected alternate delegate received 424 more votes than did the other member of
Mr. Chentnik’s slate, Mr. Barker.
It does not appear that the failure to provide the protester with a complete work-site list would have changed the outcome of the election. Even assuming that three employers employing a total of 12 to 15 Local Union 325 members were omitted from the work-site list, since the protester was able to reach these members only by using the work-site list, and since these members would have supported the Local 325 Real Teamsters Protecting Members’ Rights slate, the outcome of the election would not have changed. There is no causal connection between the omissions from the work-site list and the final result in the election. Thus, the Election Officer finds the violation pertaining to the work-site list insufficient to affect the outcome of the election.
Therefore, the Election Officer finds that there is no cause to order any remedy with respect to the Local Union 305 delegate election. Based on the foregoing, the protests in
P-223-LU325-CHI, P-224-LU325-CHI and P-224-LU325-CHI are 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:
Clifford T. Chentnik
December 18, 1995
Page 1
Kenneth Convoy, 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 Convoy, Election Appeals Master
Julie Hamos, Regional Coordinator
[1]TITAN is the IBT’s centralized electronic bookkeeeping network which records dues remittances from employers and members. The acronym “TITAN” stands for “Teamsters Information Terminal Accounting Network.”