January 17, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Arthur Port
4860 Seven Hills Road
Castro Valley, CA 94546
John Kikes
Teamsters Local Union 78
492 "C" Street
Hayward, CA 94541
Re: Election Office Case No. P-286-LU78-CSF
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Arthur Port, a member of Local Union 78, against Business Agent John Kikes. The protester alleges that when he informed the local union of his intention to run for delegate to the International convention, Mr. Kikes discouraged him from doing so. According to the protester,
Mr. Kikes, who was also a candidate for delegate, told Mr. Port that he was the only candidate running against Mr. Kikes’ slate and that an election would be very costly to the local union as Mr. Kikes would be using money from the general membership fund to pay for his campaign against Mr. Port.
Mr. Kikes denies telling the protester that he intended to utilize membership funds to campaign or in any way discouraged Mr. Port from running for delegate.
The protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Victoria Chin.
Arthur Port
January 17, 1996
Page 1
Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules guarantees all union members “the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office . . .” Section 11(b) states that while union officers are entitled to run for office, their campaigning “must not involve the expenditure of Union funds.” This prohibition is reiterated in Article XII,
Section 1(b)(2), which states, “No Union funds or other things of value shall be used, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual.”
Mr. Kikes stated that when he learned of the protester's candidacy for delegate, he wanted to speak with him to find out whether Mr. Port's platform was the same as that espoused by Mr. Kikes’ slate. After attempting to contact Mr. Port at his place of employment, Mr. Kikes telephoned him at home. Mr. Port and Mr. Kikes held a telephone conversation lasting between 10 to 15 minutes on December 28, 1995.
According to the protester during a telephone conversation, Mr. Kikes told him that an election of delegates would cost Local Union 78 about $10,000 and that such an expense would cause many members to resent them both. Mr. Kikes, the protester asserts, stated that Mr. Port would need to spend about $1,200 to $1,500 on his campaign and he did not know whether attending the IBT Convention was worth that type of expense to Mr. Port. Mr. Kikes suggested that Mr. Port evaluate the odds of running alone against Mr. Kikes’ slate. According to the protester, Mr. Kikes expressed concern “about spending all this money out of the membership fund in order to campaign against [Mr. Port].”
Mr. Port described the telephone conversation as civil. He stated that while he did not feel threatened by Mr. Kikes, he was somewhat intimidated about his chances of winning the election.
Mr. Kikes asserts that he informed Mr. Port in their December 28 conversation that he had the right to run for delegate and discussed what serving as a delegate entails. Mr. Kikes told Mr. Port that he was the only candidate running against Mr. Kikes’ slate and described what their slate stood for. According to Mr. Kikes, he explained to Mr. Port that the costs of campaigning would be financed by the candidates, that it would be expensive, and that he didn’t know whether it was worth it for either of them to spend so much money, as well as time and effort, to attend the convention. Mr. Kikes denies telling the protester that he would be using union funds to conduct his campaign or that the delegate election would cost the local union approximately $10,000. Mr. Kikes admits, however, telling Mr. Port that Local Union 78 had spent $5,000 to $10,000 in the past to conduct elections of local officers.
Local Union 78 held its nomination meeting on January 2, 1996. Mr. Port did not appear, nor did he submit a written acceptance of nomination prior to the meeting as permitted by the Rules.
During the investigation, Mr. Port stated that his decision not to run was “primarily” his own. He explained that he had intended to utilize the written nomination procedure but did not complete the necessary paperwork on time.
Arthur Port
January 17, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer is always concerned when a protest raises the possibility that there has been any interference with a member’s right to run for delegate. In order for the right to run for office under Article VIII, Section 11(a) to be effective, it must not be restrained or discouraged by other members or those in a position to intimidate other potential candidates. In this case, however, it appears that despite his conversation with Mr. Kikes, Mr. Port still intended to run for delegate but did not complete the paperwork on time. Thus, in these circumstances, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Kikes did not violate Article VIII,
Section 11(a) of the Rules.
In regard to the alleged use of union funds by Mr. Kikes for his campaign, there is no evidence that there has been any expenditure of union funds to finance the delegate campaign.
For the foregoing reasons, 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 and 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
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator
Victoria Chin, Adjunct Regional Coordinator