January 25, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Don McGill
January 25, 1996
Page 1
Don McGill
5661 Fairlight Cres
Delta, BC
Canada V4E 1B3
Henry Nieminen
1230 East 23rd Avenue
Vancouver, BC
Canada V5V 1Y9
Ed MacIntosh, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 213
490 East Broadway
Vancouver, BC
Canada V5T 1X3
Don McGill
January 25, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-331-LU213-CAN
Gentlemen:
A pre-election 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 Don McGill, president of Local Union 213, against Henry Nieminen, a member of the local union and candidate for delegate to the International convention. The protester asserts that Mr. Nieminen improperly accepted his nomination because he submitted a written acceptance prior to the nomination meeting to the Election Officer only, rather than to the local union with a copy to the Election Officer or her representative, as required by Article II, Section 5(g) of the Rules.
The charged party responds that he complied with the Rules as he understood them by sending a letter accepting the nomination to the Election Officer, with a copy to the Regional Coordinator for Canada. Mr. Nieminen contends that because the Election Officer's representative read his written acceptance out loud at the nomination meeting, "therefore the local union has a written acceptance as required."
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Gwen Randall.
Don McGill
January 25, 1996
Page 1
Article II, Section 5(g) states as follows:
A member shall accept his/her nomination either in person at the meeting, or, if absent from the meeting, by furnishing a written acceptance of nomination in advance of the meeting either to the Local Union or to another member who, present at the nomination meeting, produces it at the time the member is nominated. If furnished to the Local Union, a copy of this written acceptance of nomination should also be submitted to the Election Officer or her representative no later than 5 p.m. of the day immediately prior to the day of the relevant nomination meeting.
It is undisputed that Mr. Nieminen submitted a timely written acceptance of nomination
to the Election Officer, with a copy to the Regional Coordinator, but not to the local union.
Local Union 213 held its nomination meeting on January 17, 1996. The Election Officer's representative read Mr. Nieminen's acceptance to the members present. Mr. Nieminen ran as an independent candidate for delegate. Eighteen other members were nominated as part of a slate of candidates for delegate and alternate delegate, and one member ran independently for alternate delegate.
The protesters correctly state that the charged party did not comply with Article II, Section 5(g) because the written acceptance was not submitted to the local union or presented by a member attending the meeting. Thus, the charged party has technically violated the Rules.
Article I of the Rules states that the Election Officer is charged with "the conduct of fair, honest, open and informed elections," and has the authority "to take all necessary actions in supervising the election process to insure fair, honest, open and informed elections."
Measured against the scope of the Election Officer's authority set forth in Article I , the Election Officer finds that it does not serve the underlying purpose of the Rules or the Consent Decree if Mr. Nieminen were to be barred from running for delegate. While there is no question that he should have submitted his acceptance to the local union or to a member attending the meeting, there is no indication of any attempt by the nominee or his supporters to undermine the nomination of delegates in Local Union 213.
Furthermore, the Election Officer notes that the Rules for submitting written nominations and seconds under Article II, Section 5(f) instructs members to send these to the Election Officer or her representative. Since another procedure is set forth for accepting nominations under Article II, Section 5(g), this could understandably cause some confusion.
Finally, the submission of the written acceptance to the Election Officer rather than to Local Union 213 or another member did not disadvantage the other candidates or adversely affect the nomination process. Other candidates were nominated for delegate and alternate and an election will take place, in accordance with the Rules.
Don McGill
January 25, 1996
Page 1
For the reasons set forth above, the Election Officer holds that Mr. Nieminen is eligible to run for delegate and 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
Gwen Randall, Regional Coordinator